Howdy, Stranger!

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

Biden’s national poll lead remains and the swing state surveys are looking positive – politicalbetti

1235711

Comments

  • dixiedean said:

    PMQs review from a relatively balanced POV please?

    OK.
    A test and trace too far from Starmer. Boris was prepared for it and batted it away without really scoring.
    Starmer's best bit was outlining how many if his relatives work for the NHS.
    A maiden over only beating the bat once.
    By contrast he was weaker on 2 topics from elsewhere. Football came up twice. Just platitudes. The government will have to act somehow. @TSE pointed out yesterday how many EFL clubs are in Tory or marginal seats.
    More importantly on furlough and other financial help.
    It became clear they are determined to end it, but haven't reached a consensus on what will replace it.
    So the PM resorted to waffle. He was vulnerable here. Nothing to say and Sir Keir missed it.
    Yes, I think this is very fair. Starmer too predictable to cause huge trouble, but Johnson too out of form to score runs.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    Boris - 'looking at a massive package of financial support '

    I expect Rishi to announce a German style job scheme and other support in the next few days

    Will Rishi also be the one to announce a German-style EU trade deal?
    I would be delighted
    How about your great grandchildren, who will pick up the gargantuan bill? along with all their other bills
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    Many of these issues apply even with an FTA.
    So deal with them and move on. Times change, if there's an FTA and trade has to adapt to it then adapt to it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,317

    Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    We hold all the cards.
    We do indeed. We can walk away and make a clean break quite confidently.
    Being willing to walk away is not the same as holding all the cards though.
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    We hold all the cards.
    We do indeed. We can walk away and make a clean break quite confidently.
    Being willing to walk away is not the same as holding all the cards though.
    Why not? Being able to walk away is a card.
  • BBC News - Sunak weighs up new worker pay subsidy scheme
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54264689
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,317

    Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    We hold all the cards.
    We do indeed. We can walk away and make a clean break quite confidently.
    Being willing to walk away is not the same as holding all the cards though.
    Why not? Being able to walk away is a card.
    It’s one card.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't.

    Do you seriously think that under Clause 42 a Minister could eg pass an order to get Starmer arrested for opposing Boris and that Clause 45 means that the Courts can't say "no, that doesn't fall within Clause 42's powers"?
    The courts would certainly try to intervene on the basis that the government has gone beyond its powers but you are missing 2 key points I think:-

    1. The government is determined to remove any legal restraint on its actions. If it gets its way with this Bill, it will try to do this in other situations. That is why this Bill - in its current form - is so toxic and must be stopped.
    2. It could use the clause 45 powers for a clause 42 purpose but do so in such a way that breaches other provisions of domestic law eg on sex or race discrimination and clause 45 is an attempt to stop scrutiny of even this.

    How successful this will be is another matter. But in a sense the government wins no matter what: it either gets away with putting itself above the law - a very dangerous precedent - or it gets a fight with the courts and poses as the victim in a concocted fight between The Will of the People and The Law.

    A government with this sort of mindset and attitude is one that does not really believe in democracy and checks and balances in its bones and that is a very dangerous thing for our country and our political system.
    Indeed.

    I still think this is a tricky decision for Starmer. If they give Boris another six months to play with the trainset, they can hardly criticise him for what he does. They will be wearing this. It will be on them as well as the tories.
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    A trade surplus is only important if money is important.
    COVID has shown that money is not an issue - it can be printed, borrowed or conjured up through QE.
    The shortage of goods that halted trade implies is a different matter.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,943
    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,733
    Hang on, they are only doing 6,000 tests a day in Scotland?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    BBC News - Sunak weighs up new worker pay subsidy scheme
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54264689

    Looks like Bailey has given Sunak his credit card back after all.
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    Shame about the mozzarella, though. Is there an alternative pizza topping that might be worth stocking up?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 419
    edited September 23
    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    It does look that way, doesn't it. And yet all these tests in schools aren't revealing a vast reservoir of hidden virus.

    Perhaps it just the rush back from overseas just prior to the start of the school term? People behaving differently on holiday in countries which aren't testing enough to know the true prevalence? And then not isolating as asked.

    That seems to be what happened in March...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,457
    edited September 23
    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Yes

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,842
    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    My daughter’s place has a licence until 2 am. And yes people do stay that late. It’s a sociable place the only place for the 4 villages it serves where people can meet - for a chat, quiz nights, announcing the winner of the leek-growing competition, meetings of the local historical and other societies, the village hall meetings, music events etc etc.

    There are four distinct groups who go there in an evening: the early drinkers, those who go there for a meal and a drink, the 2-3 post-meal pints and the late-nighters. The effect of shutting at 10 will be either to lose the trade from the last group or they will come earlier and the pub will need to prioritise between them using a table or eaters, unless it is still warm enough to sit outside. What it won’t do is stop that drinking because the likelihood will be that they will drink at home. And good luck to anyone trying to police whether they’re in a group of 6 or not. So the effect on virus spreading is likely to be marginal.

    The effect on the hospitality sector is not going to be marginal, however, especially on top of all the other lost trade.

    If Sunak does not come up with a support package, the hospitality sector will be crucified long before the 6 months is up.

    My brother's is the same. And the late drinkers bring in a lot of profit, at the cost of some very late nights for him.
    I've seen estimates that early closing will cost pubs around half their trade. Does that sound right ?
    Yes. Drinkers standing at a bar bring in a lot of profit. Add to that:-
    1. The loss of events of all kinds;
    2. No Xmas parties or other Xmas events.
    3. The loss of most of the spring / summer season - look at all the Bank Holidays & days like Mother’s Day lost between March - July this year;
    4. The likely loss of the start of the next spring season from the spring half-term holidays onwards, especially if the restrictions last 6 months or longer as Hancock was intimating.
    5. No more furlough help.

    Hospitality is facing 3 winters in a row. It cannot survive this without help. The costs of doing so need to be set against the costs of unemployment - its consequential costs on landlords, banks, other businesses, councils, business closures and its consequences - loss of VAT, alcohol duty, tax, NI - and welfare costs, quite apart from the human costs.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 5,777

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    That pollster is rated A+ with 538.

    As you say, very worrying polling for Biden.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    Think so?

    The rust belt is the way to the presidency. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania still v. precarious
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't.

    Do you seriously think that under Clause 42 a Minister could eg pass an order to get Starmer arrested for opposing Boris and that Clause 45 means that the Courts can't say "no, that doesn't fall within Clause 42's powers"?

    No, I do not think that, Phil. But either you believe in the rule of law or you do not. Once you don't, nothing is off the table.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 5,777
    HYUFD said:

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Yes


    There's a slightly more recent poll that shows the opposite, although not as well rated a pollster.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,842

    Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    Shame about the mozzarella, though. Is there an alternative pizza topping that might be worth stocking up?
    No.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't.

    Do you seriously think that under Clause 42 a Minister could eg pass an order to get Starmer arrested for opposing Boris and that Clause 45 means that the Courts can't say "no, that doesn't fall within Clause 42's powers"?

    No, I do not think that, Phil. But either you believe in the rule of law or you do not. Once you don't, nothing is off the table.

    Phil doesn't. He's very clear on that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    It does look that way, doesn't it. And yet all these tests in schools aren't revealing a vast reservoir of hidden virus.

    Perhaps it was just the rush back from overseas just prior to the start of the school term? People behaving differently on holiday in countries which aren't testing enough to know the true prevalence?
    Most Scots tend to go in holiday in late June/early July before the English come off and prices go up in a normal year. Anecdotally, the number of families I know who went abroad (as opposed to a break in the UK) is very small. I very much doubt that is the explanation.

    What I fear is that the bubble idea has simply not worked for very large groups of teenage kids and that they have passed on the virus, even if they weren't actually ill themselves. How many kids are actually being tested? My understanding is that it is those with symptoms which may very well be a small proportion of those with the virus. In fairness the +ve rate amongst those tested has indeed been small. My son has not been tested in the 5 weeks he has been back and I am not aware of any of his class mates being tested either.
  • Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't.

    Do you seriously think that under Clause 42 a Minister could eg pass an order to get Starmer arrested for opposing Boris and that Clause 45 means that the Courts can't say "no, that doesn't fall within Clause 42's powers"?
    The courts would certainly try to intervene on the basis that the government has gone beyond its powers but you are missing 2 key points I think:-

    1. The government is determined to remove any legal restraint on its actions. If it gets its way with this Bill, it will try to do this in other situations. That is why this Bill - in its current form - is so toxic and must be stopped.
    2. It could use the clause 45 powers for a clause 42 purpose but do so in such a way that breaches other provisions of domestic law eg on sex or race discrimination and clause 45 is an attempt to stop scrutiny of even this.

    How successful this will be is another matter. But in a sense the government wins no matter what: it either gets away with putting itself above the law - a very dangerous precedent - or it gets a fight with the courts and poses as the victim in a concocted fight between The Will of the People and The Law.

    A government with this sort of mindset and attitude is one that does not really believe in democracy and checks and balances in its bones and that is a very dangerous thing for our country and our political system.
    Indeed.

    I still think this is a tricky decision for Starmer. If they give Boris another six months to play with the trainset, they can hardly criticise him for what he does. They will be wearing this. It will be on them as well as the tories.
    I'm not sure these sort of things are as difficult for oppositions as commentators say, or as perhaps they should be.

    For example, Cameron's whole approach post-financial crisis in 2007-8 was to condemn Brown's Government for being insufficiently prudent at a time when they had been arguing he was being too prudent.

    Oppositions do, in reality, have the luxury of relatively rarely being picked up tomorrow on making the wrong policy call today (because in reality it isn't their call - they might have made the same mistake as the Government were they in power or different ones, but that's all counterfactual parlour games in people's minds).
  • theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    Easily Trump's best polls for a long time, and by a strong pollster too. Interesting.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't. It can use the powers given to it by the legislation which are extremely limited. It cannot use the powers for any other purpose. If it purported to it could be judicially reviewed because it would not fall within the protections given by the section. This is really, really basic stuff.

    I agree that there is an issue of principle here. The provisions of clauses 42 and 43 give the Minister (or Parliament if this is amended) the power to breach an international agreement signed only a few months ago. We don't do that sort of thing, not because we can't but because it is wrong to do so and undermines the international order. But this is absolutely not a Henry VIII type clause allowing Ministers to amend things at will in whatever area they think fit. It just isn't.

    The legislaiton gives it the power to ignore all domestic and internaitonal law in order to enact Sections 42 and 43 in the ways that it sees fit. That puts the government above the rule of law. That is pretty basic stuff, David, and I am genuinely surprised you are so relaxed about it. That you are terrifies the life out of me because I wonder at what point you will cease to be relaxed. And if you, a senior lawyer, have no problem with the government putting itself above the rule of law then I doubt many others will. That is how our democracy ends.

  • Why are we copying from the freedom-hating Germans? Outrageous.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,684

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    Yes. Not keen on those at all. Just the inkling of an inkling of a concern on my part. First time that's happened.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,733
    edited September 23

    Why are we copying from the freedom-hating Germans? Outrageous.
    You haven't got the hang of this, have you? You steal the good bits then claim you come up with them. That'd be the Tory party's motto if it wasn't so long.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318
    The Sturge said if she had the borrowing powers to do so she would have shut pubs and restraunts and financially supported them.
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    Shame about the mozzarella, though. Is there an alternative pizza topping that might be worth stocking up?
    Welsh mozzarella is very good. Mozzarella isn't a geographically protected cheese.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,331
    edited September 23
    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other schools for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,733

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't. It can use the powers given to it by the legislation which are extremely limited. It cannot use the powers for any other purpose. If it purported to it could be judicially reviewed because it would not fall within the protections given by the section. This is really, really basic stuff.

    I agree that there is an issue of principle here. The provisions of clauses 42 and 43 give the Minister (or Parliament if this is amended) the power to breach an international agreement signed only a few months ago. We don't do that sort of thing, not because we can't but because it is wrong to do so and undermines the international order. But this is absolutely not a Henry VIII type clause allowing Ministers to amend things at will in whatever area they think fit. It just isn't.

    The legislaiton gives it the power to ignore all domestic and internaitonal law in order to enact Sections 42 and 43 in the ways that it sees fit. That puts the government above the rule of law. That is pretty basic stuff, David, and I am genuinely surprised you are so relaxed about it. That you are terrifies the life out of me because I wonder at what point you will cease to be relaxed. And if you, a senior lawyer, have no problem with the government putting itself above the rule of law then I doubt many others will. That is how our democracy ends.

    "This is how our democracy ends". You're having a laugh, right?
  • Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't.

    Do you seriously think that under Clause 42 a Minister could eg pass an order to get Starmer arrested for opposing Boris and that Clause 45 means that the Courts can't say "no, that doesn't fall within Clause 42's powers"?
    The courts would certainly try to intervene on the basis that the government has gone beyond its powers but you are missing 2 key points I think:-

    1. The government is determined to remove any legal restraint on its actions. If it gets its way with this Bill, it will try to do this in other situations. That is why this Bill - in its current form - is so toxic and must be stopped.
    2. It could use the clause 45 powers for a clause 42 purpose but do so in such a way that breaches other provisions of domestic law eg on sex or race discrimination and clause 45 is an attempt to stop scrutiny of even this.

    How successful this will be is another matter. But in a sense the government wins no matter what: it either gets away with putting itself above the law - a very dangerous precedent - or it gets a fight with the courts and poses as the victim in a concocted fight between The Will of the People and The Law.

    A government with this sort of mindset and attitude is one that does not really believe in democracy and checks and balances in its bones and that is a very dangerous thing for our country and our political system.

    Yep, as I said at the start of this discussion, if you believe in democracy and the rule of law you cannot support the Internal Market Bill.

  • TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
  • Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    A trade surplus is only important if money is important.
    COVID has shown that money is not an issue - it can be printed, borrowed or conjured up through QE.
    The shortage of goods that halted trade implies is a different matter.
    Not just that. Lack of money becomes an issue gradually over time. Lack of stuff (food, raw materials or components for industry,...) becomes a problem very quickly. And the UK is messing up supply lines from multiple countries, whereas EU countries are each messing up supply lines from one.

    The first rule of politics? Practitioners need to be able to count.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,842

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't. It can use the powers given to it by the legislation which are extremely limited. It cannot use the powers for any other purpose. If it purported to it could be judicially reviewed because it would not fall within the protections given by the section. This is really, really basic stuff.

    I agree that there is an issue of principle here. The provisions of clauses 42 and 43 give the Minister (or Parliament if this is amended) the power to breach an international agreement signed only a few months ago. We don't do that sort of thing, not because we can't but because it is wrong to do so and undermines the international order. But this is absolutely not a Henry VIII type clause allowing Ministers to amend things at will in whatever area they think fit. It just isn't.

    The legislaiton gives it the power to ignore all domestic and internaitonal law in order to enact Sections 42 and 43 in the ways that it sees fit. That puts the government above the rule of law. That is pretty basic stuff, David, and I am genuinely surprised you are so relaxed about it. That you are terrifies the life out of me because I wonder at what point you will cease to be relaxed. And if you, a senior lawyer, have no problem with the government putting itself above the rule of law then I doubt many others will. That is how our democracy ends.

    Well this lawyer is very concerned indeed.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    RobD said:

    Why are we copying from the freedom-hating Germans? Outrageous.
    You haven't got the hang of this, have you? You steal the good bits then claim you come up with them. That'd be the Tory party's motto if it wasn't so long.
    So they should copy Germany's "Brexit" deal and boast about how they managed to negotiate a vote in the Council, representatives in the European Parliament, and frictionless trade?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    The schools have tried really hard to minimise the risks and provide an education. Nearly all after school activities have been stopped, certainly all inter school activities. But I fear that the preliminary conclusion is that it has not been enough.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,457

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    Easily Trump's best polls for a long time, and by a strong pollster too. Interesting.
    If Trump does indeed win Arizona and Florida then Biden will almost certainly have to win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to win the EC with the result unlikely to be known on election night and probably not confirmed for some time
  • RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't. It can use the powers given to it by the legislation which are extremely limited. It cannot use the powers for any other purpose. If it purported to it could be judicially reviewed because it would not fall within the protections given by the section. This is really, really basic stuff.

    I agree that there is an issue of principle here. The provisions of clauses 42 and 43 give the Minister (or Parliament if this is amended) the power to breach an international agreement signed only a few months ago. We don't do that sort of thing, not because we can't but because it is wrong to do so and undermines the international order. But this is absolutely not a Henry VIII type clause allowing Ministers to amend things at will in whatever area they think fit. It just isn't.

    The legislaiton gives it the power to ignore all domestic and internaitonal law in order to enact Sections 42 and 43 in the ways that it sees fit. That puts the government above the rule of law. That is pretty basic stuff, David, and I am genuinely surprised you are so relaxed about it. That you are terrifies the life out of me because I wonder at what point you will cease to be relaxed. And if you, a senior lawyer, have no problem with the government putting itself above the rule of law then I doubt many others will. That is how our democracy ends.

    "This is how our democracy ends". You're having a laugh, right?

    Without the rule of law there is no democracy. Basic stuff.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    My daughter’s place has a licence until 2 am. And yes people do stay that late. It’s a sociable place the only place for the 4 villages it serves where people can meet - for a chat, quiz nights, announcing the winner of the leek-growing competition, meetings of the local historical and other societies, the village hall meetings, music events etc etc.

    There are four distinct groups who go there in an evening: the early drinkers, those who go there for a meal and a drink, the 2-3 post-meal pints and the late-nighters. The effect of shutting at 10 will be either to lose the trade from the last group or they will come earlier and the pub will need to prioritise between them using a table or eaters, unless it is still warm enough to sit outside. What it won’t do is stop that drinking because the likelihood will be that they will drink at home. And good luck to anyone trying to police whether they’re in a group of 6 or not. So the effect on virus spreading is likely to be marginal.

    The effect on the hospitality sector is not going to be marginal, however, especially on top of all the other lost trade.

    If Sunak does not come up with a support package, the hospitality sector will be crucified long before the 6 months is up.

    My brother's is the same. And the late drinkers bring in a lot of profit, at the cost of some very late nights for him.
    I've seen estimates that early closing will cost pubs around half their trade. Does that sound right ?
    Yes. Drinkers standing at a bar bring in a lot of profit. Add to that:-
    1. The loss of events of all kinds;
    2. No Xmas parties or other Xmas events.
    3. The loss of most of the spring / summer season - look at all the Bank Holidays & days like Mother’s Day lost between March - July this year;
    4. The likely loss of the start of the next spring season from the spring half-term holidays onwards, especially if the restrictions last 6 months or longer as Hancock was intimating.
    5. No more furlough help.

    Hospitality is facing 3 winters in a row. It cannot survive this without help. The costs of doing so need to be set against the costs of unemployment - its consequential costs on landlords, banks, other businesses, councils, business closures and its consequences - loss of VAT, alcohol duty, tax, NI - and welfare costs, quite apart from the human costs.
    5 looks likely to be reversed to some degree and I think hospitality businesses may get another grant to ride out the winter. Fingers crossed for your daughter's business even though I'm sure she'd rather be in businesses than relying on state handouts.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,331

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,250
    Cyclefree said:

    Considering the EU has a trade surplus with us it would be in their interests to start taking the trade talks seriously and give a clean, simple, Canada style trade deal then wouldn't it?

    But it takes two to tango, if they don't want to, we can't make them, so no deal it can be.
    Shame about the mozzarella, though. Is there an alternative pizza topping that might be worth stocking up?
    No.
    Most UK mozzarella comes from Wales
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Hungary, here we come ...

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

    What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

    Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

    As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

    No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

    Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

    Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.
    Have you read it? The provisions of clause 45 provide that nothing in a variety of sources, including the WA, will override orders made under clauses 42 and 43. Clause 42 is the untrammelled power to, err, remove export declarations on goods going to NI. Clause 43 is the power to make provisions for State Aid in NI even if these contradict the agreement in article 10 of the WA.

    It is far from clear that the ouster provisions will work but they may stop JR based on the earlier provisions or the WA. Such provisions are always read very restrictively by the courts. This is unlimited power to do next to nothing.

    The whole point of S.45 is that the courts are removed from the equation. That puts the government above the rule of law. Once that happens, the government can act in any way it wishes.
    No it can't. It can use the powers given to it by the legislation which are extremely limited. It cannot use the powers for any other purpose. If it purported to it could be judicially reviewed because it would not fall within the protections given by the section. This is really, really basic stuff.

    I agree that there is an issue of principle here. The provisions of clauses 42 and 43 give the Minister (or Parliament if this is amended) the power to breach an international agreement signed only a few months ago. We don't do that sort of thing, not because we can't but because it is wrong to do so and undermines the international order. But this is absolutely not a Henry VIII type clause allowing Ministers to amend things at will in whatever area they think fit. It just isn't.

    The legislaiton gives it the power to ignore all domestic and internaitonal law in order to enact Sections 42 and 43 in the ways that it sees fit. That puts the government above the rule of law. That is pretty basic stuff, David, and I am genuinely surprised you are so relaxed about it. That you are terrifies the life out of me because I wonder at what point you will cease to be relaxed. And if you, a senior lawyer, have no problem with the government putting itself above the rule of law then I doubt many others will. That is how our democracy ends.

    I have been clear from the start that I think that these provisions are stupid, not least because it is triggering a completely hyperbolic response like this. How democracy ends? I can only presume that you are taking the piss.

    The law requires very clear provisions if new legislation is to override other legislation or even international agreements that we have signed up to. If the legislation does not have this then the courts will "interpret" the legislation in a way that is consistent with those previous provisions. This provision has that clarity. The result is that if NI has an urgent need for Welsh mozzarella we can deliver it there, even if the EU refuses to accept the regulatory framework under which that mozzarella is produced. We still would not be able to export it to the SM but we can send it to another part of the UK. If the pizza makers of NI are deemed a strategic interest that we need to protect we can give them State Aid, even if that would be illegal under EU law.

    The reality is that Parliament always has these powers. Always. Why we need to pass them now instead of when the issue actually arises escapes me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,610
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,331

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    Yep.
  • Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    The clear statement (and Boris just repeated it at PMQs) is to keep the virus contained at a manageable level untl a vaccine becomes available.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318
    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    The key thing is that 51-47 lead for Trump in Florida is on the back of a huge swing after applying the voter screen.

    RV - Biden:48 Trump:47
    LV - Biden:47 Trump: 51

    This is why I discount RV polls after the conventions.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Better targeted testing. The UK testing programme is horribly unfocused with loads of people using it to avoid the 14 day quarantine despite showing no symptoms.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    It does look that way, doesn't it. And yet all these tests in schools aren't revealing a vast reservoir of hidden virus.

    Perhaps it just the rush back from overseas just prior to the start of the school term? People behaving differently on holiday in countries which aren't testing enough to know the true prevalence? And then not isolating as asked.

    That seems to be what happened in March...
    Think of all the increased activity that goes with schools. Shifting child care arrangements, increased travel, massively increased mixing of 'bubbles'.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    I think our testing has been rather more limited and a lot more focused. But the increase in the rate is deeply troubling.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Remember that's newly tested individuals not results of tests.

    Scotland did 12497 tests.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814
    Alistair said:

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    The key thing is that 51-47 lead for Trump in Florida is on the back of a huge swing after applying the voter screen.

    RV - Biden:48 Trump:47
    LV - Biden:47 Trump: 51

    This is why I discount RV polls after the conventions.
    I still have this nightmare that Trump will win Florida, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio and Michigan on narrow margins but giving him a decisive electoral college victory and a 5 point popular vote loss.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,610
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    My daughter’s place has a licence until 2 am. And yes people do stay that late. It’s a sociable place the only place for the 4 villages it serves where people can meet - for a chat, quiz nights, announcing the winner of the leek-growing competition, meetings of the local historical and other societies, the village hall meetings, music events etc etc.

    There are four distinct groups who go there in an evening: the early drinkers, those who go there for a meal and a drink, the 2-3 post-meal pints and the late-nighters. The effect of shutting at 10 will be either to lose the trade from the last group or they will come earlier and the pub will need to prioritise between them using a table or eaters, unless it is still warm enough to sit outside. What it won’t do is stop that drinking because the likelihood will be that they will drink at home. And good luck to anyone trying to police whether they’re in a group of 6 or not. So the effect on virus spreading is likely to be marginal.

    The effect on the hospitality sector is not going to be marginal, however, especially on top of all the other lost trade.

    If Sunak does not come up with a support package, the hospitality sector will be crucified long before the 6 months is up.

    My brother's is the same. And the late drinkers bring in a lot of profit, at the cost of some very late nights for him.
    I've seen estimates that early closing will cost pubs around half their trade. Does that sound right ?
    Yes. Drinkers standing at a bar bring in a lot of profit. Add to that:-
    1. The loss of events of all kinds;
    2. No Xmas parties or other Xmas events.
    3. The loss of most of the spring / summer season - look at all the Bank Holidays & days like Mother’s Day lost between March - July this year;
    4. The likely loss of the start of the next spring season from the spring half-term holidays onwards, especially if the restrictions last 6 months or longer as Hancock was intimating.
    5. No more furlough help.

    Hospitality is facing 3 winters in a row. It cannot survive this without help. The costs of doing so need to be set against the costs of unemployment - its consequential costs on landlords, banks, other businesses, councils, business closures and its consequences - loss of VAT, alcohol duty, tax, NI - and welfare costs, quite apart from the human costs.
    5 looks likely to be reversed to some degree and I think hospitality businesses may get another grant to ride out the winter. Fingers crossed for your daughter's business even though I'm sure she'd rather be in businesses than relying on state handouts.
    It had better be.

    The pubs near me were already mostly struggling before all this. Several have gone in last five years.

    This will be the end for many I fear. The Spoons will survive. Maybe the only one left.

    I don't see the gain from this on virus justifies the probable loss. This seems like doing something to look like doing something.

    A better approach is to simply shut the pubs until Spring and pay the rent and wages and have done with it, if the decision is made to focus on flattening the case numbers until end of winter.

    Total and utter shambles.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Remember that's newly tested individuals not results of tests.

    Scotland did 12497 tests.
    That means that we should have had 975 +ve results on that rate, roughly twice what has been announced. Something a bit odd here but nothing makes these numbers good.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    Yep.
    Even though many conservative MPs are reported to be 'restive' I don;t think there was a single question along these lines to Boris today.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,291

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    The clear statement (and Boris just repeated it at PMQs) is to keep the virus contained at a manageable level untl a vaccine becomes available.
    Yeah. I've been critical of the lack of a clear aim.
    But the PM clearly outlined one yesterday and repeated it today.
    Just because the Telegraph doesn't like it does not mean it doesn't exist.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,250
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    I think our testing has been rather more limited and a lot more focused. But the increase in the rate is deeply troubling.
    Surely if the bulk of your testing goes on those with symptoms or have had close contact with those who have then you will get a higher positive rate.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,610
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    The clear statement (and Boris just repeated it at PMQs) is to keep the virus contained at a manageable level untl a vaccine becomes available.
    Yeah. I've been critical of the lack of a clear aim.
    But the PM clearly outlined one yesterday and repeated it today.
    Just because the Telegraph doesn't like it does not mean it doesn't exist.
    I didn't see PMQs. Did he give a clue what "manageable" means?

    And if the plan is to do this until the vaccine arrives what if that is in three years time?

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Remember that's newly tested individuals not results of tests.

    Scotland did 12497 tests.
    That means that we should have had 975 +ve results on that rate, roughly twice what has been announced. Something a bit odd here but nothing makes these numbers good.
    IT means of people who've never had a test before 7.6% tested positive. So there were 5000 people newly tested yesterday. But in total 12497 tests were done
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318
    Blimey on the ABC Arizona poll 77% are planning to vote by mail.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,325
    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    He is somebody who makes Trump look underprivileged and self-aware.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,127
    edited September 23
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    Reopening the schools was always going to be risky, even though it is essential. If we'd been planning this properly, we'd have shut down all non-essential business and travel (as we did in March) prior to reopening the schools and, only then, begun to gradually reopen businesses while keeping a close eye on the R number.

    While this would have meant more financial pain at beginning, it would at least have given some hope for the future and kept the death count down. Instead, we are running a great risk of infections spiralling out of control and needing another prolonged and unplanned total shutdown at even more cost to life and commerce.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588
    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    I would like to say that it is absolutely none of his business but in fairness none of us have been particularly shy of expressing our views of Trump on here. Still very much the sort of thing Royals have learned not to do over the last century, of course.
  • MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    Is Prince Harry unpopular in the USA or does is the general impression of him a man who served in the military, married a well-liked American TV star, and was driven out by the stuffy Brits?

    That's a genuine question - I don't know, but am concerned your view may reflect a UK-centric position (personally, I incline to something like the view I outline above but acknowledge that he's had awful press in the UK and mine is a minority view here).
  • Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    He's been living there for about 5 minutes completely detached from ordinary Americans and now he's telling them how to vote.

    Has he gone completely mad?
  • Alistair said:

    Blimey on the ABC Arizona poll 77% are planning to vote by mail.

    Does it break it down by party affiliation?
  • Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    He's been living there for about 5 minutes completely detached from ordinary Americans and now he's telling them how to vote.

    Has he gone completely mad?
    Or does he, perhaps, have a series of programmes for Netflix in the pipeline that mean he'd welcome a few headlines?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,331

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    Reopening the schools was always going to be risky, even though it is essential. If we'd been planning this properly, we'd have shut down all non-essential business and travel (as we did in March) prior to reopening the schools and, only then, begun to gradually reopen businesses while keeping a close eye on the R number.

    While this would have meant more financial pain at beginning, it would at least have given some hope for the future and kept the death count down. Instead, we are running a great risk of infections spiralling out of control and needing another prolonged and unplanned total shutdown at even more cost to life and commerce.
    Thing is, let's say opening schools causes infections to spike, which I think is a reasonable hypothesis.

    That means, simply, that you can't reopen them until there is a vaccine.

    As I said earlier, the whole process of opening schools means there will likely be huge virus dissemination.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited September 23
    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    No, it’s not ‘exactly like’.
    He’s married to a US citizen, and resident in the US, is he not ?

    And I think he’s more entitled than most to express an opinion on the orange asshole...
    https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/president-trump-claimed-could-have-slept-princess-diana-a4158401.html

    That apart, I tend to agree with you.
  • HYUFD said:

    theakes said:

    But latest ABC polls have Trump leading 51-47 in Florida and 49-48 in Arizona.

    Those are extremely good polls for Trump. Need to wait to see if it's indicative of a trend.
    Easily Trump's best polls for a long time, and by a strong pollster too. Interesting.
    If Trump does indeed win Arizona and Florida then Biden will almost certainly have to win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to win the EC with the result unlikely to be known on election night and probably not confirmed for some time
    Yes, that's true. Bang on time, St Pete's have come in with a +3 for Biden in Florida but they don't have such a high reputation so still a net boost for Trump.

    I have always been sceptical about Biden taking Florida but until this poll Arizona was looking very good for him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588
    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Remember that's newly tested individuals not results of tests.

    Scotland did 12497 tests.
    That means that we should have had 975 +ve results on that rate, roughly twice what has been announced. Something a bit odd here but nothing makes these numbers good.
    IT means of people who've never had a test before 7.6% tested positive. So there were 5000 people newly tested yesterday. But in total 12497 tests were done
    Well, thanks for the explanation but what a weird way to present the statistics. Who cares if people have been tested before? What we want to know is how many have got the virus now. So, assuming the +ve results are not restricted to the new people but all of those tested the real +ve rate is 3.9% of all tests done. Which is bad enough.
  • Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?
  • Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    He's been living there for about 5 minutes completely detached from ordinary Americans and now he's telling them how to vote.

    Has he gone completely mad?
    Toby Young and his Free Speech Union will be along shortly to tell you stop infringing on Prince Harry's right to free speech.

    Or maybe not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    Don't count your chickens, chlorinated or otherwise, before they hatch Philip.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,365
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    No, it’s not ‘exactly like’.
    He’s married to a US citizen, and resident in the US, is he not ?

    And I think he’s more entitled than most to express an opinion on the orange asshole...
    https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/president-trump-claimed-could-have-slept-princess-diana-a4158401.html
    Good to see you acknowledging what a clusterfuck "back of the queue" was for remain.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814

    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    Is Prince Harry unpopular in the USA or does is the general impression of him a man who served in the military, married a well-liked American TV star, and was driven out by the stuffy Brits?

    That's a genuine question - I don't know, but am concerned your view may reflect a UK-centric position (personally, I incline to something like the view I outline above but acknowledge that he's had awful press in the UK and mine is a minority view here).
    Obama was superficially popular too when he made those back of the queue comments. It's one thing for British people to say the country is shite and we hate it here, but very different for an outsider to do say the UK is shite and they hate it. It makes everyone instinctively defensive and dismissive of what that person is saying regardless of whether it's true or not.

    Luckily Americans won't be paying attention to this from Harry and hopefully Trump won't signal boost it. A proper royal would stay out and keep their views to themselves. I'm really hoping team Biden don't signal boost this stuff, it's exactly the kind of endorsement Hillary would have used as an introduction to her at a major event.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    "What’s really missing, of course... is a clear statement of what the new national mission is so that we can debate it. Is this about keeping deaths down to a certain level? Is it about keeping hospitalisations within the health system’s capacity? What are the long-term economic and health costs of our approach?"

    Telegraph
    The clear statement (and Boris just repeated it at PMQs) is to keep the virus contained at a manageable level untl a vaccine becomes available.
    Define "manageable level".
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,317

    Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    What concessions are we bringing?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318

    Alistair said:

    Blimey on the ABC Arizona poll 77% are planning to vote by mail.

    Does it break it down by party affiliation?
    Yes.
  • Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    I have come to the conclusion that you are not really Philip Thompson, if he ever existed. You are on here 24/7 and blindly and unquestioningly support the most hopeless PM in the history of the United Kingdom.

    You are therefore Conservative Central Office and I claim my £5.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814
    edited September 23
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    No, it’s not ‘exactly like’.
    He’s married to a US citizen, and resident in the US, is he not ?

    And I think he’s more entitled than most to express an opinion on the orange asshole...
    https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/president-trump-claimed-could-have-slept-princess-diana-a4158401.html

    That apart, I tend to agree with you.
    Then he should keep it to that, not make political judgements. This will do nothing to help oust Trump, which is surely the goal. Harry is a narcissistic fool who just wants to feel relevant and is using the election to get himself back in the news.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    Reopening the schools was always going to be risky, even though it is essential. If we'd been planning this properly, we'd have shut down all non-essential business and travel (as we did in March) prior to reopening the schools and, only then, begun to gradually reopen businesses while keeping a close eye on the R number.

    While this would have meant more financial pain at beginning, it would at least have given some hope for the future and kept the death count down. Instead, we are running a great risk of infections spiralling out of control and needing another prolonged and unplanned total shutdown at even more cost to life and commerce.
    Thing is, let's say opening schools causes infections to spike, which I think is a reasonable hypothesis.

    That means, simply, that you can't reopen them until there is a vaccine.

    As I said earlier, the whole process of opening schools means there will likely be huge virus dissemination.
    The point I'm trying to make is that it would have been a good idea to minimise transmission via other means before reopening the schools. It might then have been possible to keep R below 1 despite virus transmission through schools. Instead, we have opted for almost certain chaos.
  • Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    What concessions are we bringing?
    I imagine we will bring some ultimately, that's how compromises work. But we hold the cards so it should be a deal along the lines of what we have asked for in the end, tweaked to however makes it acceptable to them.
  • RolandRoland Posts: 6
    11 documented cases of reinfection. Average interval between infections 64 days. 4 cases symptoms worse second time around, 2 improved, 3 stayed the same, 2 undocumented.

    More data needed, but it's possible we have a new at risk group, namely those who have already been infected once.

    https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,588

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    So Scotland has suddenly accelerated ahead of England from a position when we were doing better than the average, if not quite matching the SW.

    When you think about why, and I really, really hate to say this, by far the most obvious explanation is that our kids went back to school 2-3 weeks earlier than England. Bugger. If we cannot get the R rate under 1 with kids attending school we have an absolute nightmare on our hands.
    The idea that having schools go back would not increase the rate of infection was and is ridiculous. Just look at all the possible permutations - three siblings in different years each with after-school activities with people from other scholls for example and you have the whole of one school open to cross contamination and any number of other schools likewise via the after-school activities.

    But Boris says the increasing case rate is our fault.
    Increasing case numbers are coming from young adults not children at the minute.
    First off we don't know the delivery mechanism. Second, sending children back to school brings in all kinds of other people from older siblings to teaching assistants to nannies to you name it.

    The whole paraphernalia of getting children back to schools - a policy I happen to agree with - was going to increase the infection rate.

    The question is what price are we willing to pay to let it happen.
    Reopening the schools was always going to be risky, even though it is essential. If we'd been planning this properly, we'd have shut down all non-essential business and travel (as we did in March) prior to reopening the schools and, only then, begun to gradually reopen businesses while keeping a close eye on the R number.

    While this would have meant more financial pain at beginning, it would at least have given some hope for the future and kept the death count down. Instead, we are running a great risk of infections spiralling out of control and needing another prolonged and unplanned total shutdown at even more cost to life and commerce.
    I remain of the view that the return of University students to their accommodation is going to make schools returning look like a walk in a sterilised lab wearing full PPE.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814
    DavidL said:

    Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    Don't count your chickens, chlorinated or otherwise, before they hatch Philip.
    Unless the confessions are signed off by Berlin then they are worthless so let's see what they actually are. If it's a 5 or 6/10 state aid agreement then I expect we will sign the deal and scrap the internal markets bill.
  • DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    That's awful, that's French levels of positive rate. Very worrying.

    Hope its a abberation and not a trend.
    It is a trend. Positivity rate has been pushing upwards for a while now.
    UK positivity is around 1.5% so Scottish positivity being 7.8% seems very odd.
    Remember that's newly tested individuals not results of tests.

    Scotland did 12497 tests.
    That means that we should have had 975 +ve results on that rate, roughly twice what has been announced. Something a bit odd here but nothing makes these numbers good.
    IT means of people who've never had a test before 7.6% tested positive. So there were 5000 people newly tested yesterday. But in total 12497 tests were done
    Well, thanks for the explanation but what a weird way to present the statistics. Who cares if people have been tested before? What we want to know is how many have got the virus now. So, assuming the +ve results are not restricted to the new people but all of those tested the real +ve rate is 3.9% of all tests done. Which is bad enough.
    The people tested before will largely be health service and care home workers who are tested regularly .
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,318
    So the one thing I would say about the ABC polls is like many pollsters they have completely reweighted hwo they are doing education.

    But, in a world's first, they may be over egging the HS or less.

    In 2016 the CNN Florida (which as far as I can tell was broadly accurate with Cliton's under by 1 and Trump's score bang on) exit poll had 18% HS or less voter.
    The ABC poll has weighted it to 34% HS or less.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,317
    edited September 23

    Interesting that Sky are talking about progress being made in trade talks and Barnier bringing concessions.

    Almost as if the UK playing hard ball works. Who could have foreseen that?

    What concessions are we bringing?
    I imagine we will bring some ultimately, that's how compromises work. But we hold the cards so it should be a deal along the lines of what we have asked for in the end, tweaked to however makes it acceptable to them.
    You’re hilariously deluded. :D

    Either way if there is a deal you will celebrate it as a brilliant success, even if previously you’d denounced the compromises as a vassal state situation or some other. It’s just what you do.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited September 23
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    No, it’s not ‘exactly like’.
    He’s married to a US citizen, and resident in the US, is he not ?

    And I think he’s more entitled than most to express an opinion on the orange asshole...
    https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/president-trump-claimed-could-have-slept-princess-diana-a4158401.html
    Good to see you acknowledging what a clusterfuck "back of the queue" was for remain.
    Good* to see you’re still putting words in others’ mouths, and still fighting yesterday’s battles.

    *Well, predictable, at least.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Prince Harry is volunteering for some invective from Trump.

    Honestly, this is exactly the kind of shit Trump lives for. A British establishment figure that no one really likes any more chatting shit about the US election. This is exactly like Obama telling the UK about being at the back of the queue etc... It's just completely counterproductive.
    Is Prince Harry unpopular in the USA or does is the general impression of him a man who served in the military, married a well-liked American TV star, and was driven out by the stuffy Brits?

    That's a genuine question - I don't know, but am concerned your view may reflect a UK-centric position (personally, I incline to something like the view I outline above but acknowledge that he's had awful press in the UK and mine is a minority view here).
    Obama was superficially popular too when he made those back of the queue comments. It's one thing for British people to say the country is shite and we hate it here, but very different for an outsider to do say the UK is shite and they hate it. It makes everyone instinctively defensive and dismissive of what that person is saying regardless of whether it's true or not.

    Luckily Americans won't be paying attention to this from Harry and hopefully Trump won't signal boost it. A proper royal would stay out and keep their views to themselves. I'm really hoping team Biden don't signal boost this stuff, it's exactly the kind of endorsement Hillary would have used as an introduction to her at a major event.
    I don't know whether Obama's intervention helped or hindered the Remain campaign, or whether it had no impact. Plainly it didn't work, and the overall "Project Fear" messaging of which it was part was a bad strategy. But I do wonder if the idea it actively harmed the Remain campaign is actually correct.

    As I've also noted, I am not sure whether Prince Harry's intention is actually to help the Biden campaign anyway (although doubtless Meghan is going to vote Biden). They have a series of Netflix programmes in the pipeline, and it isn't the worst thing for him to be in the headlines in the US, regardless of any bearing on the campaign (which I suspect will be minimal either way).
This discussion has been closed.