It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Hope their MPs will be support the Brady Bunch next week as they try and get back some control from the executive over virus emergency regulations.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
The problem that will occur, then, is this - In the policy drafting stages, lots of special interests will start adding in exemptions for their "pet" benefit.
After a few rounds, UBI will just be another benefit.
I call this phenomenon "NASA glove syndrome" - every year NASA invites designs, experiments etc on space suit gloves. Every year (these days) gloves based on the mechanical counter pressure concept win. Every year these ideas are "fixed" by the existing space suit mafia. Who reject all counter pressure systems on principle.
The resulting impasse is part of the reason that NASA can't field new space suits.
You make a good point. I personally will work within the LibDems to do what I can to resist that scope creep.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
The only way I would support decriminalisation of drugs, is if the policy involves the entire supply chain.
It should include a costed taxation structure over the supply chain as well - to ensure that legal drugs are cheaper than the criminal version. It is what happens for alcohol, after all....
The policy adopted in some countries - drug are legal to own, but producing them is criminal, is just a criminals charter.
From Day 1 10% of the population have behaved irresponsibly, ignored the rules and not given a damn whether they spread the disease. This is nothing new. Don't assume that it is what the majority of people are doing.
Quite.
I have a friend, for example, who in between damning the government/scientists, invites likeminded friends and their families round for BBQs, parties etc. And has done through the lockdown.
Quite simply, he is one of those people who existence is affirmed by socialisation. If there isn't something happening with him at the centre, then he doesn't feel he exists.
Same for his holidays to slightly unusual destinations - a complex plot of air miles, vouchers and upgrades. Unless he has got his holiday to Guatemala (say), complete with discounts and upgrades, his life is part empty.
What is interesting, when talking to him, is how the blame slides off.
Clearly you know Sean better than the rest of us
Ha.
No. It interesting to see such fault lines in people. Someone who is generous to a fault, outgoing, friendly, helpful etc. suddenly fractures selfishly (in effect) on the issue of self isolation.
I'm told by a trick cyclist of my aquaintance that this isn't uncommon - it's to do with how people measure their self image internally, IIRC.
Does he have any good tips for free upgrades?
Asking for a friend. Who happens to be going to Mexico next month.
Without asking him, it involves juggling your flights to optimise air miles, and taking advantage of various credit card air mile offers. Multiplier offers are apparently a big thing.
One trick is to pick a suitable credit card(s) and put all your spending through that - even if you have the cash in hand.
I knew a chap who fell down that rabbit hole and got caught doing the following - loading his prepay credit card (Revolut type thing) from his premium credit card. Lots of spending. Then transferring the money from his pre-pay to his bank account and from there paying the balance on his credit card. A washing machine for air miles. And, I believe, fraudulent.
Wow. That sounds like it would take longer than the flight you're trying to get upgraded for! Maybe even longer than the holiday as a whole ...
This 10PM curfew nonsense is going to do absolutely sod all and we're going to have to get tougher.
Close the pubs completely, seems the next step
For whatever reason Boris is following the same racheting up as March i.e. here are some new rules, please try and modify your behaviour, because if you don't I will have to ground you.
I don't get it. I would have banned things household mixing.
The problem now is that we will never have the same following of the rules we had in the past.
This is why opening up so quickly was a poor decision and I think I said so at the time.
They should have stuck with outdoor meeting in small groups and left it at that.
The increase in infections are directly caused by the return of schools and universities.
You could shut down the rest of the country and that infection increase would still have happened.
Then shut down the schools as well then.
I think we're headed for a full lockdown anyway
What level of infections and deaths are you prepared to accept rather than having a full lockdown ?
And how much damage to people's health, the economy and society in general from a full lockdown are you prepared to accept ?
Well if we continue as we are we're headed for a repeat of March.
The R consistently below 1 and cases not rising would be a good start, so let's get back to where we were sometime in June. Just after the first lockdown - and then keep the rules strictly in place.
I would have a full second lockdown and then allow only meetings outdoors for a while
If things continue - though actually the rate of increase is much slower than in March and is also concentrated among the least vulnerable.
Plus some things are very different to March - knowledge about infection and treatment are greater, there is no PPE problem, testing is almost infinitely superior and hopefully more care is being taken with care homes.
And with a lockdown comes costs - cost to people's health, costs to the economy, costs to education, costs to society as a whole.
That's a trade off people need to be open about and willing to accept.
Things are not very different to March.
Cases are rising exponentially so given enough time we will be back to where we were in March.
What would you like to do?
But not all exponentially is the same - they vary depending on the initial starting point and the rate of increase.
And September is very different to March in those respects.
What I support is giving people advice and guidelines but letting them have choice and responsibility.
And if that leads to people getting infected then that is what will happen with the benefit of greater herd immunity to those people who make more careful choices.
Choice and responsibility in Britain will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the NHS getting overwhelmed.
I doubt it.
But its time for more choice and responsibility.
We cannot damage people's health, the education of the young, the economy and society as a whole to save fat slobs who have done nothing to improve their health and lifestyle during the last six months.
Choice and responsibility with the new pubs curfew has made the situation worse and not better.
We don't follow the rules, that is the problem. And that's why comparisons to Sweden are pointless, because they follow their rules.
We need another lockdown.
Some people don't follow the rules, that's always been the case.
But most do - which is why people now wear masks in shops whereas they didn't before the rule changed.
By having another lockdown you damage people's health, you damage the education of the young, you damage the economy, you damage society as a whole.
And its the people who follow the rules who would be damaged, not those who break the rules.
How much damage are you prepared to do ?
We're already in a hole - and it's getting worse.
May as well get the inevitable hard job over quickly.
You're assuming it would be over let alone over quickly.
And for that you seem to be prepared to accept any level of damage to people's health, to the education of the young, to the economy and to society as whole.
Economy is in the toilet already and long term all these things will be damaged more by COVID and its impacts if we don't get it under control now
Again you are both assuming that covid will go away with another lockdown and ignoring all the damage another lockdown would cause.
And no, the economy is not in the toilet - it has been damaged but is recovering. Another lockdown will cause more damage. That damage means people losing their jobs.
Why should people lose their jobs, why should people's health be damaged, why should the young have the education disrupted just so that fat slobs have a slightly reduced chance of dying in the next few months ?
How much do you think the economy would be affected by the policy of doing nothing?
Except we're not doing nothing as there are guidelines and restrictions in place.
Now we can have a discussion about the trade-offs between varying levels of restrictions and how they would impact the economy (or people's health or the education of the young or society in general) versus the impact of varying levels of covid.
But that's not what we're getting from the authoritarian lockdown obsessives.
They want a lockdown and they want a lockdown and they want a lockdown.
In the same way an addict wants drugs.
And the negative consequences that a lockdown brings are an irrelevance.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Hope their MPs will be support the Brady Bunch next week as they try and get back some control from the executive over virus emergency regulations.
From Day 1 10% of the population have behaved irresponsibly, ignored the rules and not given a damn whether they spread the disease. This is nothing new. Don't assume that it is what the majority of people are doing.
Quite.
I have a friend, for example, who in between damning the government/scientists, invites likeminded friends and their families round for BBQs, parties etc. And has done through the lockdown.
Quite simply, he is one of those people who existence is affirmed by socialisation. If there isn't something happening with him at the centre, then he doesn't feel he exists.
Same for his holidays to slightly unusual destinations - a complex plot of air miles, vouchers and upgrades. Unless he has got his holiday to Guatemala (say), complete with discounts and upgrades, his life is part empty.
What is interesting, when talking to him, is how the blame slides off.
Clearly you know Sean better than the rest of us
Ha.
No. It interesting to see such fault lines in people. Someone who is generous to a fault, outgoing, friendly, helpful etc. suddenly fractures selfishly (in effect) on the issue of self isolation.
I'm told by a trick cyclist of my aquaintance that this isn't uncommon - it's to do with how people measure their self image internally, IIRC.
Does he have any good tips for free upgrades?
Asking for a friend. Who happens to be going to Mexico next month.
Without asking him, it involves juggling your flights to optimise air miles, and taking advantage of various credit card air mile offers. Multiplier offers are apparently a big thing.
One trick is to pick a suitable credit card(s) and put all your spending through that - even if you have the cash in hand.
I knew a chap who fell down that rabbit hole and got caught doing the following - loading his prepay credit card (Revolut type thing) from his premium credit card. Lots of spending. Then transferring the money from his pre-pay to his bank account and from there paying the balance on his credit card. A washing machine for air miles. And, I believe, fraudulent.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
The only way I would support decriminalisation of drugs, is if the policy involves the entire supply chain.
It should include a costed taxation structure over the supply chain as well - to ensure that legal drugs are cheaper than the criminal version. It is what happens for alcohol, after all....
The policy adopted in some countries - drug are legal to own, but producing them is criminal, is just a criminals charter.
I totally agree. You need to manage the total supply chain like cigarettes or alcohol. And you need to include public health warnings and support for users, and harsh penalties for illegal producers and suppliers.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
The problem that will occur, then, is this - In the policy drafting stages, lots of special interests will start adding in exemptions for their "pet" benefit.
After a few rounds, UBI will just be another benefit.
I call this phenomenon "NASA glove syndrome" - every year NASA invites designs, experiments etc on space suit gloves. Every year (these days) gloves based on the mechanical counter pressure concept win. Every year these ideas are "fixed" by the existing space suit mafia. Who reject all counter pressure systems on principle.
The resulting impasse is part of the reason that NASA can't field new space suits.
You make a good point. I personally will work within the LibDems to do what I can to resist that scope creep.
I have encountered arguments such as-
- UBI would massively favour the native workforce. The simple UBI plan is to abolish minimum wage. UBI become, in effect the minimum wage. The wages in low end jobs would plummet - because the employers would be paying the taxes to pay the UBI.... So a job in a coffee shop would pay very little. And would be taxed - since there is no tax free allowance, all earnings are taxed. So an immigrant worker without UBI would be trying to live on pennies.
This 10PM curfew nonsense is going to do absolutely sod all and we're going to have to get tougher.
Close the pubs completely, seems the next step
For whatever reason Boris is following the same racheting up as March i.e. here are some new rules, please try and modify your behaviour, because if you don't I will have to ground you.
I don't get it. I would have banned things household mixing.
The problem now is that we will never have the same following of the rules we had in the past.
This is why opening up so quickly was a poor decision and I think I said so at the time.
They should have stuck with outdoor meeting in small groups and left it at that.
The increase in infections are directly caused by the return of schools and universities.
You could shut down the rest of the country and that infection increase would still have happened.
Then shut down the schools as well then.
I think we're headed for a full lockdown anyway
What level of infections and deaths are you prepared to accept rather than having a full lockdown ?
And how much damage to people's health, the economy and society in general from a full lockdown are you prepared to accept ?
Well if we continue as we are we're headed for a repeat of March.
The R consistently below 1 and cases not rising would be a good start, so let's get back to where we were sometime in June. Just after the first lockdown - and then keep the rules strictly in place.
I would have a full second lockdown and then allow only meetings outdoors for a while
If things continue - though actually the rate of increase is much slower than in March and is also concentrated among the least vulnerable.
Plus some things are very different to March - knowledge about infection and treatment are greater, there is no PPE problem, testing is almost infinitely superior and hopefully more care is being taken with care homes.
And with a lockdown comes costs - cost to people's health, costs to the economy, costs to education, costs to society as a whole.
That's a trade off people need to be open about and willing to accept.
Things are not very different to March.
Cases are rising exponentially so given enough time we will be back to where we were in March.
What would you like to do?
But not all exponentially is the same - they vary depending on the initial starting point and the rate of increase.
And September is very different to March in those respects.
What I support is giving people advice and guidelines but letting them have choice and responsibility.
And if that leads to people getting infected then that is what will happen with the benefit of greater herd immunity to those people who make more careful choices.
Choice and responsibility in Britain will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the NHS getting overwhelmed.
I doubt it.
But its time for more choice and responsibility.
We cannot damage people's health, the education of the young, the economy and society as a whole to save fat slobs who have done nothing to improve their health and lifestyle during the last six months.
Choice and responsibility with the new pubs curfew has made the situation worse and not better.
We don't follow the rules, that is the problem. And that's why comparisons to Sweden are pointless, because they follow their rules.
We need another lockdown.
Some people don't follow the rules, that's always been the case.
But most do - which is why people now wear masks in shops whereas they didn't before the rule changed.
By having another lockdown you damage people's health, you damage the education of the young, you damage the economy, you damage society as a whole.
And its the people who follow the rules who would be damaged, not those who break the rules.
How much damage are you prepared to do ?
We're already in a hole - and it's getting worse.
May as well get the inevitable hard job over quickly.
You're assuming it would be over let alone over quickly.
And for that you seem to be prepared to accept any level of damage to people's health, to the education of the young, to the economy and to society as whole.
Economy is in the toilet already and long term all these things will be damaged more by COVID and its impacts if we don't get it under control now
Again you are both assuming that covid will go away with another lockdown and ignoring all the damage another lockdown would cause.
And no, the economy is not in the toilet - it has been damaged but is recovering. Another lockdown will cause more damage. That damage means people losing their jobs.
Why should people lose their jobs, why should people's health be damaged, why should the young have the education disrupted just so that fat slobs have a slightly reduced chance of dying in the next few months ?
The economy is not recovering now COVID is going back up again
You are obsessed.
You seem unwilling to accept that life is about trade-offs.
Education, health, the economy and society in general are all to be ruined by an authoritarian obsession with covid.
If we do nothing, the virus is going to get worse, kill thousands of people and it's going to destroy the economy. I am not willing to let that happen
Haven't you noticed the negligible death rate amongst those of economically active age?
I'm a little lockdown-sceptic myself but it isn't just about the death rate.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
It isn't. I think Davey is referring to the current legal position (He's doing a HYUFD) rather than the position following a move to federalism. Federalism would be a massive move and fiercely resisted by those who currently hold the power and would lose it.
Another couple having a look around our house. We had a buyer for all of 3 days - we accepted an offer. Then lockdown & Sunak and the lass suddenly is likely to lose her job so she pulled out. I also went up to Aberdeenshire this week to have a look at the house palace we want to buy. Should be mega stressful this house buying, but the happy pills leave me chilled out
Your property looks correctly priced if it's the one I think it is on Rightmove, it'll sell if there's anyone at all looking to buy a 3? bed semi in your area.
As you've already commented on our red front door, yes! A lot of space for the money. As is the 6 bed mansion / bank we want to buy in Aberdeenshire
This is one of the best restaurants in town, and they have laid out their tables either side of a cobbled street leaving just enough room for traffic to drive through. Every so often a car drives right through and passes inches from my table and it feels entirely normal, yet no one would be allowed to serve meals like this in the UK
Still, radio stations in Italy still play Michael Jackson hits, as well
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
The only way I would support decriminalisation of drugs, is if the policy involves the entire supply chain.
It should include a costed taxation structure over the supply chain as well - to ensure that legal drugs are cheaper than the criminal version. It is what happens for alcohol, after all....
The policy adopted in some countries - drug are legal to own, but producing them is criminal, is just a criminals charter.
Absolutely. The big problem created by drugs is crime. Yes addiction is bad, yes the health problems are bad but those can be treated. If I wanted to I could get smashed off my tits every night legally on whisky, yet if I want to mellow out and smoke a fat joint that would be Wrong.
Legalise the lot. Cocaine becomes an expensive city boi recreational drug that can be educated out of people as smoking has been. Smack becomes "are you absolutely certain you want me to prescribe this" etc
It isn't. I think Davey is referring to the current legal position (He's doing a HYUFD) rather than the position following a move to federalism. Federalism would be a massive move and fiercely resisted by those who currently hold the power and would lose it.
I can't see a federal UK lasting 5 minutes unless you break England up into regional states.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
The only way I would support decriminalisation of drugs, is if the policy involves the entire supply chain.
It should include a costed taxation structure over the supply chain as well - to ensure that legal drugs are cheaper than the criminal version. It is what happens for alcohol, after all....
The policy adopted in some countries - drug are legal to own, but producing them is criminal, is just a criminals charter.
Absolutely. The big problem created by drugs is crime. Yes addiction is bad, yes the health problems are bad but those can be treated. If I wanted to I could get smashed off my tits every night legally on whisky, yet if I want to mellow out and smoke a fat joint that would be Wrong.
Legalise the lot. Cocaine becomes an expensive city boi recreational drug that can be educated out of people as smoking has been. Smack becomes "are you absolutely certain you want me to prescribe this" etc
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
Will there be details on how England fits into a federal UK in that manifesto?
It isn't. I think Davey is referring to the current legal position (He's doing a HYUFD) rather than the position following a move to federalism. Federalism would be a massive move and fiercely resisted by those who currently hold the power and would lose it.
Davey is absolutely right - Westminster ultimately would have to acquiesce to the referendum request. Proposing Federalism as an alternative helps muddy the waters and broaden the question out so that its not just for Scotland.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
The problem that will occur, then, is this - In the policy drafting stages, lots of special interests will start adding in exemptions for their "pet" benefit.
After a few rounds, UBI will just be another benefit.
I call this phenomenon "NASA glove syndrome" - every year NASA invites designs, experiments etc on space suit gloves. Every year (these days) gloves based on the mechanical counter pressure concept win. Every year these ideas are "fixed" by the existing space suit mafia. Who reject all counter pressure systems on principle.
The resulting impasse is part of the reason that NASA can't field new space suits.
You make a good point. I personally will work within the LibDems to do what I can to resist that scope creep.
I have encountered arguments such as-
- UBI would massively favour the native workforce. The simple UBI plan is to abolish minimum wage. UBI become, in effect the minimum wage. The wages in low end jobs would plummet - because the employers would be paying the taxes to pay the UBI.... So a job in a coffee shop would pay very little. And would be taxed - since there is no tax free allowance, all earnings are taxed. So an immigrant worker without UBI would be trying to live on pennies.
If there is low pay for a boring job with low prospects of progression, and UBI, the boring job wont get filled. Low pay working in the arts or media might become more common, but businesses would need to pay someone like a barista enough to make it worth their while.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
The problem that will occur, then, is this - In the policy drafting stages, lots of special interests will start adding in exemptions for their "pet" benefit.
After a few rounds, UBI will just be another benefit.
I call this phenomenon "NASA glove syndrome" - every year NASA invites designs, experiments etc on space suit gloves. Every year (these days) gloves based on the mechanical counter pressure concept win. Every year these ideas are "fixed" by the existing space suit mafia. Who reject all counter pressure systems on principle.
The resulting impasse is part of the reason that NASA can't field new space suits.
You make a good point. I personally will work within the LibDems to do what I can to resist that scope creep.
I have encountered arguments such as-
- UBI would massively favour the native workforce. The simple UBI plan is to abolish minimum wage. UBI become, in effect the minimum wage. The wages in low end jobs would plummet - because the employers would be paying the taxes to pay the UBI.... So a job in a coffee shop would pay very little. And would be taxed - since there is no tax free allowance, all earnings are taxed. So an immigrant worker without UBI would be trying to live on pennies.
People in low end jobs on UBI could choose whether to work or not. So employers might have to pay more, not less, to attract them to work.
Removing the tax free allowance is not necessary though the UBI would also be taxed and would use up some or possibly all of the tax free allowance depending on the level.
Who would be entitled to UBI is an interesting question. It will be easier to implement being outside the EU - one benefit of Brexit. It could be restricted to UK citizens (including children at a reduced rate).
Immigrant workers might benefit from the higher wages that employers would need to pay to encourage people to work.
A UBI might encourage people who currently live on benefits to take up work because they wouldn't lose the benefit. It would need to carefully designed and trialled (perhaps in Scotland?)
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
Will there be details on how England fits into a federal UK in that manifesto?
I believe England will become "the regions of the UK" to sit alongside "the nations".
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
It isn't. I think Davey is referring to the current legal position (He's doing a HYUFD) rather than the position following a move to federalism. Federalism would be a massive move and fiercely resisted by those who currently hold the power and would lose it.
I can't see a federal UK lasting 5 minutes unless you break England up into regional states.
Yes that was discussed at length at the LibDem conference this morning.
Personally I don't see that happening. There would need to be an English Parliament, probably at Westminster, and a very light Federal organisation responsible for powers that are in the common interest (defence, currency) but not taxation, spending, services etc.
This is why the government needs to look at a test, track, trace and separate policy rather than isolate. People aren't isolating. Pay people some amount while they are in government accomodation but make it mandatory, fuck the headlines of forced incarceration or whatever the Mail comes up with. People clearly can't be trusted to isolate themselves properly so let's take it out of our hands. Give people PlayStation's, internet, Netflix, double rooms for couples, suites and family rooms for families etc... but ensure that people who test positive aren't able to interact with anyone else.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
Surely the current borders don't have to be the end. Lets go back to old Northumbria and Strathclyde and Wessex etc
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
What level of UBI are they talking about.
One way that the politicians love to row back on UBI, is on the universality. Keep lots of there benefits to fiddle with...
My view is a single replacement for
1) The tax free allowance 2) Benefit 3) State pension
Paid monthly, directly by the state.
The key is removing conditionality. It is for everyone, regardless of wealth or income, like access to the NHS or schools. Of course much of it it will be clawed back from the well-off by taxation.
I agree there shouldn't be lots of additional means-tested benefits. Keep it simple.
The LibDem vote was on a policy motion i.e. the principle of UBI. The detailed proposals on the level and financing of it will come much later in a costed manifesto for the next election.
Will there be details on how England fits into a federal UK in that manifesto?
I suspect not. Personally I think Scotland needs to become independent first before it then chooses to join a federal structure that is in its interests for defence, currency etc but preserves freedom for almost everything else. A bit like 1707 but done better.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
Surely the current borders don't have to be the end. Lets go back to old Northumbria and Strathclyde and Wessex etc
And that's another problem when discussing regional parliaments - everyone ends up talking about boundaries instead of discussing powers.
There are signs that Johnson’s popularity is on the slide. But even if there weren’t, it seems a pretty safe bet, because this is how this country treats its leaders, even ones who deserve it a whole lot less than he does. Boris Johnson has risen through the ranks, propelled by no cause more noble more than his own hunger for power. As he’s done so, he’s shown repeatedly that he craves applause more than he cares about delivering on any particular policy agenda or ideological mission. But soon enough, the applause will stop, because it always does, and his power will ebb away,
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
Surely the current borders don't have to be the end. Lets go back to old Northumbria and Strathclyde and Wessex etc
And that's another problem when discussing regional parliaments - everyone ends up talking about boundaries instead of discussing powers.
My bit of Teesside demonstrates the problems. We are absolutely a sub-region - north and south of the River Tees are well integrated and share the same issues. Yet the old Yorkshire / Durham border is emotive, so where would a line be drawn between Yorkshire and the North East?
In reality that doesn't much matter unless it has actual power. The Tees Valley "Metro" mayor gets paid a pittance and doesn't really have much power when compared to other metro mayors. Creating "Tees Valley" is fine, but pointless unless we can actually do something with it.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
The pressure will now be on them including from many members in England. The federalism policy was passed by a large majority 588 to 221.
About 3,000 people have signed up and paid to be at the LibDem conference. There have been about 1,000 in the auditorium and voting so far. I expect a bigger crowd for the leader's speech. Lots of activities on the fringe. It's not as good as being physically present but not bad.
LibDem lead thanks to passing our new Universal Basic Income policy
LibDem conference has just passed a motion making LibDem policy federalism rather than devolution for the UK. I.e. power given upwards rather than downwards. Distinct from Tory and Labour positions and might appeal more in Scotland and Wales.
Yes, Federalism is something I have advocated for some time as the solution to the UK's problems. The party has a federal structure, and its great that its now policy.
The problem is that the English Lib Dems won't play ball and agree to either regional parliaments or a single England parliament.
Surely the current borders don't have to be the end. Lets go back to old Northumbria and Strathclyde and Wessex etc
Old Northumbria contains loads of Scotland. A brave proposal.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not if everyone is also getting a Universal Basic Income.
There will be a huge saving on the bureaucracy of the benefit system. It would also be an opportunity to sort out NI extending it up the full salary scale and including pensioners.
There will be winners and losers. I suspect there will be many more winners than losers, but the losers will be better able to afford it. They won't like it of course.
People since time began have gone fir advisers rather than the king. Its safer.
And since time began they've been wrong. Boris is PM. He chose Cummings. He outlines his role, defended him over Barnard Castle. He serves at Johnson's will. Get rid of Cummings and another will take his place.
... nor indeed how a national Universal Basic Income equates to decentralisation and local decision-making.
Any Federal structure has federal level policies and laws and locally devolved ones. UBI doesn't negate federalism, it underpins it. Everyone everywhere has a minimum guaranteed income to live on. What services and priorities your area wants to make is up to them, but surely we have to have some blanket standards. Otherwise we are in a Panem scenario where some places are wealthy and in others people are hungry. UBI is supposed to stop that sort of disparity.
I'm not sure how compulsorily taking my money and giving it to people who don't need it equates to giving me back control...
You'll get some back as the UBI. But you might be a net loser. If you would be a net loser, you already have control. It's for those who haven't.
There are millions of people in zero hour jobs, in the gig economy, struggling and soemtimes failing to make ends meet. They would get some control of their lives. I suspect you already have it.
No I don't. Top down unionism is what we have now. Devolution controlled by the Westminster parliament including IndRefs.
Er, I though Sir Ed has said specifically that it's for Westminster to decide on indy refs?
That is legally true now. Federalism would change that.
Sounds like Sir Ed is perfectly happy with the current system whereby an MP for Kingston and Surbiton knows what's best for folk in Scotland.
'During an interview with ITV, Sir Ed was asked if he would accept an SNP majority at the 2021 Holyrood election as a mandate for a new referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lib Dem leader said: “I don’t accept that because they need to make sure that they’ve got the votes in the House of Commons.
“I was elected to this House on a mandate to oppose a second referendum.”
Pressed on whether Westminster should “ignore the will of the Scottish people”, he added: “To get that mandate you need to persuade people at Westminster and at Holyrood.”
... nor indeed how a national Universal Basic Income equates to decentralisation and local decision-making.
Any Federal structure has federal level policies and laws and locally devolved ones. UBI doesn't negate federalism, it underpins it. Everyone everywhere has a minimum guaranteed income to live on. What services and priorities your area wants to make is up to them, but surely we have to have some blanket standards. Otherwise we are in a Panem scenario where some places are wealthy and in others people are hungry. UBI is supposed to stop that sort of disparity.
Of course it undermines it. All you are saying is that you want a highly centralised one-size-fits-all policy, giving the same bung to a mega-rich City banker as to an agricultural labourer in a remote part of Scotland, to stop disparities. Fine (or at least it would be if the numbers added up, which they don't), but don't be dishonest about it: that is a policy which is the diametric opposite of decentralisation. If you really wanted to decentralise, you'd let the regions decide if they want UBI, set the level, and raise the taxes for it.
I'm not sure how compulsorily taking my money and giving it to people who don't need it equates to giving me back control...
You'll get some back as the UBI. But you might be a net loser. If you would be a net loser, you already have control. It's for those who haven't.
There are millions of people in zero hour jobs, in the gig economy, struggling and soemtimes failing to make ends meet. They would get some control of their lives. I suspect you already have it.
Yes, exactly, I certainly don't need the money. Nor do millions of other people. The deadweight of this policy is absolutely overwhelming, which is why anyone anywhere who has looked at it seriously has decided it's daft.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not if everyone is also getting a Universal Basic Income.
There will be a huge saving on the bureaucracy of the benefit system. It would also be an opportunity to sort out NI extending it up the full salary scale and including pensioners.
There will be winners and losers. I suspect there will be many more winners than losers, but the losers will be better able to afford it. They won't like it of course.
Not convinced by the "huge saving on bureaucracy" statement.
The cost of a UBI is estimated (link below) at about £140bn on top of the existing (cheapest proposal from Compass a couple of years ago), and much of the benefit system will stay in place.
Savings on a fraction of the admin overhead of a smaller system do not make a huge hole in the extra cost of a 2-3 times bigger system.
And it does not sound simpler - all of the special group benefits will need to stay in place, plus most of the discretionary ones. I can't see for example benefits for disabled being abolished as needs are still greater so abolishing it would be 'discrimination'.
The reaction of the Man Utd players to the equaliser was not great. It’s as though they are Brighton and have just failed to hold out for a shock win at Old Trafford.
I'm not sure how compulsorily taking my money and giving it to people who don't need it equates to giving me back control...
You'll get some back as the UBI. But you might be a net loser. If you would be a net loser, you already have control. It's for those who haven't.
There are millions of people in zero hour jobs, in the gig economy, struggling and soemtimes failing to make ends meet. They would get some control of their lives. I suspect you already have it.
Yes, exactly, I certainly don't need the money. Nor do millions of other people. The deadweight of this policy is absolutely overwhelming, which is why anyone anywhere who has looked at it seriously has decided it's daft.
Personally, if UBI amounted to about a day's pay a week, I would consider going to a 4-day week, thus free-ing up hours for the unemployed (when taken at the macro level).
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
This is why the government needs to look at a test, track, trace and separate policy rather than isolate. People aren't isolating. Pay people some amount while they are in government accomodation but make it mandatory, fuck the headlines of forced incarceration or whatever the Mail comes up with. People clearly can't be trusted to isolate themselves properly so let's take it out of our hands. Give people PlayStation's, internet, Netflix, double rooms for couples, suites and family rooms for families etc... but ensure that people who test positive aren't able to interact with anyone else.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
I'm not sure how compulsorily taking my money and giving it to people who don't need it equates to giving me back control...
You'll get some back as the UBI. But you might be a net loser. If you would be a net loser, you already have control. It's for those who haven't.
There are millions of people in zero hour jobs, in the gig economy, struggling and soemtimes failing to make ends meet. They would get some control of their lives. I suspect you already have it.
Yes, exactly, I certainly don't need the money. Nor do millions of other people. The deadweight of this policy is absolutely overwhelming, which is why anyone anywhere who has looked at it seriously has decided it's daft.
But you won't effectively get the money if you are a higher earner. Higher tax rates will neutralise the benefit of ubi for you. It isn't rocket science. Firstly the personal allowance would not be necessary (over and above the ubi) then introduce a slightly more progressive income tax rates.
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There’s about 9,000 GP surgeries in the UK. Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
Few GP practices will be that efficient (and depending on vaccine, there may be cold chain bottlenecks), but the constraint is likely to be vaccine supply, and persuading people to get vaccinated, rather than the ability to administer it.
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There’s about 9,000 GP surgeries in the UK. Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
Few GP practices will be that efficient (and depending on vaccine, there may be cold chain bottlenecks), but the constraint is likely to be vaccine supply, and persuading people to get vaccinated, rather than the ability to administer it.
I know, I know. There would also be issues with transport. My GP certainly wouldn’t be able to handle 300 people per hour turning up in cars, etc. The car park has about 4 spaces in it.
Better off doing it in football stadiums and arenas, etc.
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There’s about 9,000 GP surgeries in the UK. Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
Few GP practices will be that efficient (and depending on vaccine, there may be cold chain bottlenecks), but the constraint is likely to be vaccine supply, and persuading people to get vaccinated, rather than the ability to administer it.
For the Oxford one it has to be kept at -70C. Distribution and storage of that makes it much more difficult, as you can't just get Amazon, DHL, etc to sent it out around the country.
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
At least some of the top boffins are deeply unconvinced;
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There’s about 9,000 GP surgeries in the UK. Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
Few GP practices will be that efficient (and depending on vaccine, there may be cold chain bottlenecks), but the constraint is likely to be vaccine supply, and persuading people to get vaccinated, rather than the ability to administer it.
For the Oxford one it has to be kept at -70C. Distribution and storage of that makes it much more difficult, as you can't just get Amazon, DHL, etc to sent it out around the country.
I think that's the Moderna one. The Oxford one just has to be kept refrigerated.
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
Yes, absolutely support them whilst shut, I am fully in favour of the state doing what is needed, I am a leftie after all.
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
A friend of mine is a self-employed DJ (weddings, birthdays, etc.). Should his business be supported whilst he can't trade as normal?
I am genuinely fascinated to see where Labour takes this, Starmer seems to be all in on clearing out Corbynism, which if we are to win again seems necessary after such a large defeat
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
A friend of mine is a self-employed DJ (weddings, birthdays, etc.). Should his business be supported whilst he can't trade as normal?
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
There are signs that Johnson’s popularity is on the slide. But even if there weren’t, it seems a pretty safe bet, because this is how this country treats its leaders, even ones who deserve it a whole lot less than he does. Boris Johnson has risen through the ranks, propelled by no cause more noble more than his own hunger for power. As he’s done so, he’s shown repeatedly that he craves applause more than he cares about delivering on any particular policy agenda or ideological mission. But soon enough, the applause will stop, because it always does, and his power will ebb away,
Take this as some small consolation in the months and years of terrible government to come. One day, Boris Johnson is going to leave office, just as hated as every prime minister that came before him. The only things he ever cared about were power or popularity. Soon enough, in the scheme of things, he will have neither.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
Don't bring logic into this debate!
?
I think @williamglenn raises an important issue. A UBI could only work in a closed system (you can thank us Brexiteers for making it a possibility!), but inevitably there will be foreign workers in the country. The question is, should the funding for the UBI be ringfenced to taxes from those eligible to receive it?
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
A friend of mine is a self-employed DJ (weddings, birthdays, etc.). Should his business be supported whilst he can't trade as normal?
Yes
I’m a busker in central London. Takings are down 95% should the government support my business?
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
Don't bring logic into this debate!
Nativism is an incentive for UBI for some people.
If implemented simply - *every citizen* gets X per month, then the government, for those in employment, is paying the tax free allowance. So wages drop to whatever was *above* the UBI.
So if we have a 10K UBI, a 15K job becomes a 5K job. Good luck to Mr Migrant to live on 5K......... So suddenly the only cheap labour available is citizens......
If only people who understand how young people think could have predicted that letting everyone out onto the streets at exactly the same time would end. Honestly these scientists are absolutely fucking clueless. The 10pm closing time needs to done away with and we should just chalk it up as a failed experiment.
Supposedly they never agreed to the 10PM curfew and so you can't blame them - depending on who you ask.
This is why parliamentary scrutiny is so important, at the moment we just get a bunch of hearsay. Forcing ministers and the PM to answer questions in parliament will clear up what evidence is driving the decision making process. If we'd had that before this idiotic 10pm closing time then maybe ministers would have been forced to admit there is no scientific basis behind these measures, or they'd be able to present the evidence. Either way we wouldn't be in the dark guessing.
What I don't get is that you didn't need science to tell you the 10PM curfew wouldn't work. We mostly worked that out here as it was announced. I said it wouldn't work as did most others.
We are clearly headed for lockdown 2.0 or stricter measures - why not just close all the pubs?
If so, provide support for them while shut. Otherwise you’re bankrupting each and every one.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
A friend of mine is a self-employed DJ (weddings, birthdays, etc.). Should his business be supported whilst he can't trade as normal?
Yes
I’m a busker in central London. Takings are down 95% should the government support my business?
No, because they probably weren’t paying any tax on their earnings.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
Like National Insurance.
I'm sure you really don't fall for the line that ni actually pays for the stuff it historically was claimed to cover. There are so many holes in that now you could make a sieve.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
Like National Insurance.
I'm sure you really don't fall for the line that ni actually pays for the stuff it historically was claimed to cover. There are so many holes in that now you could make a sieve.
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There’s about 9,000 GP surgeries in the UK. Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
Few GP practices will be that efficient (and depending on vaccine, there may be cold chain bottlenecks), but the constraint is likely to be vaccine supply, and persuading people to get vaccinated, rather than the ability to administer it.
They wont need to be. The vaccine, should it arrive early next year, will be done in phases depending on urgency of need: over 80s and care workers first, then vulnerable/shielding people, then over 70s and so on.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
I quite like the sound of those things, hopefully they will get back to their liberal roots.
I never understood how a "liberal" party could have become so in favour of big spending nannying governments deciding everything for us.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
Like National Insurance.
I'm sure you really don't fall for the line that ni actually pays for the stuff it historically was claimed to cover. There are so many holes in that now you could make a sieve.
It’s about time pensioners were made to pay it. They are the biggest users after all.
It looks like the LibDems are going for distinctive, even risky, policies that are different for the other parties. Universal Basic Income, decriminalising possession of drugs, bottom up federalism.
The common factor is supporting personal autonomy - taking back control at a personal level. With many people feeling they no longer have control over their lives it could be a popular underlying theme for the LibDems. That's what the LibDems are for - helping you take back control of your life.
Is that going to go down well in their target seats such as Guildford?
I think taking back control goes down well everywhere.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
The issue with UBI is the cost. If the LDs plan to put up taxes to pay for it , that might be less popular in Guildford
Not for this voter from Guildford. I have limited access at present to go into detail but there is no reason why it can't be fiscally neutral. I was a fan of this from the 90s having initially seen a proposal from a right wing think tank. I don't know the specific of proposals of the lds but there are huge benefits in taking people out of poverty, ensuring people don't fall through the cracks, cutting back on abuse, making stuff simpler and saving on admin.
Is it not a bit nativist? Would non-citizens be exempt from paying the taxes that fund it?
No. Just like all current taxes work. Very few taxes are tied to what they pay for.
Like National Insurance.
I'm sure you really don't fall for the line that ni actually pays for the stuff it historically was claimed to cover. There are so many holes in that now you could make a sieve.
Comments
It should include a costed taxation structure over the supply chain as well - to ensure that legal drugs are cheaper than the criminal version. It is what happens for alcohol, after all....
The policy adopted in some countries - drug are legal to own, but producing them is criminal, is just a criminals charter.
Now we can have a discussion about the trade-offs between varying levels of restrictions and how they would impact the economy (or people's health or the education of the young or society in general) versus the impact of varying levels of covid.
But that's not what we're getting from the authoritarian lockdown obsessives.
They want a lockdown and they want a lockdown and they want a lockdown.
In the same way an addict wants drugs.
And the negative consequences that a lockdown brings are an irrelevance.
https://twitter.com/ITVBorderRB/status/1309121325311680514
- UBI would massively favour the native workforce. The simple UBI plan is to abolish minimum wage. UBI become, in effect the minimum wage. The wages in low end jobs would plummet - because the employers would be paying the taxes to pay the UBI.... So a job in a coffee shop would pay very little. And would be taxed - since there is no tax free allowance, all earnings are taxed. So an immigrant worker without UBI would be trying to live on pennies.
Still, radio stations in Italy still play Michael Jackson hits, as well
The Jerk Who Gave Me a C+ in English Could Cost Democrats the Senate
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/matt-lieberman-bad-english-teacher-bad-candidate.html
(Or indeed following the requirements themselves. cf Barnard Castle)
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1309148871730368518
Legalise the lot. Cocaine becomes an expensive city boi recreational drug that can be educated out of people as smoking has been. Smack becomes "are you absolutely certain you want me to prescribe this" etc
Seems like the right thing to do, then.
Removing the tax free allowance is not necessary though the UBI would also be taxed and would use up some or possibly all of the tax free allowance depending on the level.
Who would be entitled to UBI is an interesting question. It will be easier to implement being outside the EU - one benefit of Brexit. It could be restricted to UK citizens (including children at a reduced rate).
Immigrant workers might benefit from the higher wages that employers would need to pay to encourage people to work.
A UBI might encourage people who currently live on benefits to take up work because they wouldn't lose the benefit. It would need to carefully designed and trialled (perhaps in Scotland?)
Personally I don't see that happening. There would need to be an English Parliament, probably at Westminster, and a very light Federal organisation responsible for powers that are in the common interest (defence, currency) but not taxation, spending, services etc.
There are signs that Johnson’s popularity is on the slide. But even if there weren’t, it seems a pretty safe bet, because this is how this country treats its leaders, even ones who deserve it a whole lot less than he does. Boris Johnson has risen through the ranks, propelled by no cause more noble more than his own hunger for power. As he’s done so, he’s shown repeatedly that he craves applause more than he cares about delivering on any particular policy agenda or ideological mission. But soon enough, the applause will stop, because it always does, and his power will ebb away,
https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/1309833631167324162
The spontaneous, but rehearsed, goofiness that is his hallmark.
I don't see why UBI, decriminalisation of drugs and a federal solution to the breakdown of the UK should not go down well in Guildford. The first two could be appealing. The federalism might be a yawn in Guildford. I don't know. They are not obvious vote losers.
In reality that doesn't much matter unless it has actual power. The Tees Valley "Metro" mayor gets paid a pittance and doesn't really have much power when compared to other metro mayors. Creating "Tees Valley" is fine, but pointless unless we can actually do something with it.
About 3,000 people have signed up and paid to be at the LibDem conference. There have been about 1,000 in the auditorium and voting so far. I expect a bigger crowd for the leader's speech. Lots of activities on the fringe. It's not as good as being physically present but not bad.
A brave proposal.
There will be a huge saving on the bureaucracy of the benefit system. It would also be an opportunity to sort out NI extending it up the full salary scale and including pensioners.
There will be winners and losers. I suspect there will be many more winners than losers, but the losers will be better able to afford it. They won't like it of course.
Boris is PM. He chose Cummings. He outlines his role, defended him over Barnard Castle. He serves at Johnson's will.
Get rid of Cummings and another will take his place.
My GP practice is running an efficient one way system and 4 lanes - easily 200-300 an hour capacity for the simple jab.
If the COVID vaccine is relatively straightforward there should be no capacity problems with the existing system.
The question will be availability.
There are millions of people in zero hour jobs, in the gig economy, struggling and soemtimes failing to make ends meet. They would get some control of their lives. I suspect you already have it.
'During an interview with ITV, Sir Ed was asked if he would accept an SNP majority at the 2021 Holyrood election as a mandate for a new referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lib Dem leader said: “I don’t accept that because they need to make sure that they’ve got the votes in the House of Commons.
“I was elected to this House on a mandate to oppose a second referendum.”
Pressed on whether Westminster should “ignore the will of the Scottish people”, he added: “To get that mandate you need to persuade people at Westminster and at Holyrood.”
https://tinyurl.com/y6tjxg7r
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54289805
Another group who will need either a bailout or go under, as the RFU is bleeding money.
The cost of a UBI is estimated (link below) at about £140bn on top of the existing (cheapest proposal from Compass a couple of years ago), and much of the benefit system will stay in place.
Savings on a fraction of the admin overhead of a smaller system do not make a huge hole in the extra cost of a 2-3 times bigger system.
And it does not sound simpler - all of the special group benefits will need to stay in place, plus most of the discretionary ones. I can't see for example benefits for disabled being abolished as needs are still greater so abolishing it would be 'discrimination'.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/what-kind-of-universal-basic-income-do-you-support-65686.html
The funniest thing I have seen this week. A segment of the Two Ronnies, satirising Cleo Laine and Johnny Dankworth singing Three Blind Mice.
I have no idea how I ran into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ4_ZQL33Qg
Here's the real thing for a comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTX4q6Lq5wI
Let’s assume that each GP ran the same system at 300 people per hour, for say 6 hours per day.
That’s 16.2m people per day.
We could vaccinate the entire population in 5 days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-payment-for-people-self-isolating-in-highest-risk-areas
But yet again it’s an example of reactive rather than proactive policy. We basically wasted the summer lull.
Agree with you the 10 pm curfew is nonsensical.
Better off doing it in football stadiums and arenas, etc.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/boris-johnson-statement-coronavirus-covid-19-pubs-opening-hours
I am genuinely fascinated to see where Labour takes this, Starmer seems to be all in on clearing out Corbynism, which if we are to win again seems necessary after such a large defeat
Any one got any tips on buying a chimenea?
If implemented simply - *every citizen* gets X per month, then the government, for those in employment, is paying the tax free allowance. So wages drop to whatever was *above* the UBI.
So if we have a 10K UBI, a 15K job becomes a 5K job. Good luck to Mr Migrant to live on 5K......... So suddenly the only cheap labour available is citizens......
I never understood how a "liberal" party could have become so in favour of big spending nannying governments deciding everything for us.