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!
?
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?
No, because they probably weren’t paying any tax on their earnings.
Was the self employed DJ? It’s probably life UC for many, will be interesting to see how they find it. The UC system will break down because no one has done any forward planning for the coming surge so it will be even worse for them.
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;
“I am not aware of any evidence of the kind that Johnson claims exists,” says health psychologist Robert West of University College London, a member of the SPI-B group that advises Sage on behavioural science. And he emphasises that the new rule, or the motivation for it, “have not come before [SPI-B], which is something you would have thought would be important if science is going to have any say in the matter.”
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
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?
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Don’t mention the war for gods sake or we’ll be relighting Waterloo all night.
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's pretty clear that the health authorities are using the flu vaccination programme this year as a dry run and stress test for any eventual COVID vaccine in the spring. I'd expect the same priority process (with some refinements) to be applied. Bear in mind that most of the vaccines in development require a booster after the first shot. They also need several weeks to be fully effective after that. The most worrying thing for me is that the government is setting a vaccine up as a miracle cure when it's going to need nearly two months from first dose to be protective. It'll just give more ammunition to the social-irresponsibility crowd (probably America's worst export) to open everything up immediately.
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Mind, some of the stuff coming out in the DM one does wonder if the Revolutionary Wars are still going on ...
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Mind, some of the stuff coming out in the DM one does wonder if the Revolutionary Wars are still going on ...
Nicola Sturgeon would make quite a convincing Covenanter.
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
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......
Doesn't that assume the scrapping of the minimum wage?
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......
Doesn't that assume the scrapping of the minimum wage?
You could argue there is no need for a minimum wage if you have ubi
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
If it’s anything like the North East lockdown, you’re not allowed mates in your garden either.
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?
Very simply - No.
There is always the possibility I haven't got all the details nailed down!!!
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
My parents just bought one so they could spend more time outside in their garden. Lucky swine are in just the right bit of Essex to avoid most of the winter weather. They got a metal one and like it a lot. They did say they need to light it a fair distance (an hour or so) in advance so it gets up to temperature. It's also not enormously easy to light, at least if you're my father (which probably means they're extremely easy to use for the rest of the population).
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
If it’s anything like the North East lockdown, you’re not allowed mates in your garden either.
Whether a woodburner is best advised when hiding from a lung disease is also questionable.
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Mind, some of the stuff coming out in the DM one does wonder if the Revolutionary Wars are still going on ...
Nicola Sturgeon would make quite a convincing Covenanter.
I was thinking of the French Revoilution - but the Wars of the Covenant from 1638-1746?! An interesting thought, but I think we've moved on a bit from that in Scotland, especially as the SNP is not, unlike the two former main parties, linked with either side of the Irish side of that episode.
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......
Doesn't that assume the scrapping of the minimum wage?
You could argue there is no need for a minimum wage if you have ubi
In which case you can see the point @Malmesbury is making. There would be constant arguments about who should be entitled to receive UBI. Some of an anti-immigration persuasion may think that UBI and no minimum wage is a good way to get what they want, but somehow I don't think it would be the end of the issue.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Mind, some of the stuff coming out in the DM one does wonder if the Revolutionary Wars are still going on ...
Nicola Sturgeon would make quite a convincing Covenanter.
I was thinking of the French Revoilution - but the Wars of the Covenant from 1638-1746?! An interesting thought, but I think we've moved on a bit from that in Scotland, especially as the SNP is not, unlike the two former main parties, linked with either side of the Irish side of that episode.
Well, we have a new Irish Question to take sides on now I suppose.
Mine, a present, sat there for years unused, but we use it and a fire pit regularly now. No advice on what to get though. Make sure you season first with a couple of small fires.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
Wonder if she might pull the plug for the month of October while the furlough scheme is still in effect. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it might be a necessary step.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
Firepit then, so you can see one another on either side.
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
My parents just bought one so they could spend more time outside in their garden. Lucky swine are in just the right bit of Essex to avoid most of the winter weather. They got a metal one and like it a lot. They did say they need to light it a fair distance (an hour or so) in advance so it gets up to temperature. It's also not enormously easy to light, at least if you're my father (which probably means they're extremely easy to use for the rest of the population).
Thanks.
I am struggling with the choice between clay (seems to have maintenance issues in a wet climate) and a metal one (probably have to be self-assembly).
I reckon the clay, traditional design will burn better.
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.
Although one could say they have paid for forty years making little use of it so why have to pay now they do.
Well I’ve paid plenty of income tax and we’re not still at war with Napoleon?
Mind, some of the stuff coming out in the DM one does wonder if the Revolutionary Wars are still going on ...
Nicola Sturgeon would make quite a convincing Covenanter.
I was thinking of the French Revoilution - but the Wars of the Covenant from 1638-1746?! An interesting thought, but I think we've moved on a bit from that in Scotland, especially as the SNP is not, unlike the two former main parties, linked with either side of the Irish side of that episode.
Well, we have a new Irish Question to take sides on now I suppose.
So we do! Only with Messrs Johnson and Cummings taking the place of the Irish in 1066 and all That:
“Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question, ...”
And as HYUFD would point out (and did the other day) the RCs seem to have lined up with the mainstream C of S in giving some support to the Tories, at leasr in the UK - no i dea if that is true in Scotland. While the links of eg the Labour party with RC Irish folk have collapsed in recent years (much to Slab's indignation).
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
If it’s anything like the North East lockdown, you’re not allowed mates in your garden either.
Whether a woodburner is best advised when hiding from a lung disease is also questionable.
Nonsense. A good lungful of burnt birch will see off this pesky little bug, you mark my words.
OXFORD United's challenging week hit a bizarre new low at lunchtime when their coach would not start.
As part of coronavirus precautions, an alcohol-based spray is deployed once everyone is on board.
But it triggered the breathalyser used by the driver as a safety measure, which left the squad stranded at their hotel half an hour away from Accrington Stanley.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
Wonder if she might pull the plug for the month of October while the furlough scheme is still in effect. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it might be a necessary step.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
If they have all had it they may as well carry on as normal at uni
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
If it’s anything like the North East lockdown, you’re not allowed mates in your garden either.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
Wonder if she might pull the plug for the month of October while the furlough scheme is still in effect. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it might be a necessary step.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
I've been struck by the coverage in the Graun - about how awful it is to ban students from pubs when other grown-ups don't get banned. The question to my mind is whether they are behaving as grownups (ort at least enough of them - some are). The Riot Act has been read by the SG and unviersities together, regardless of whining, and how well the students behave this w/e is evidently going to be critical.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
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's pretty clear that the health authorities are using the flu vaccination programme this year as a dry run and stress test for any eventual COVID vaccine in the spring. I'd expect the same priority process (with some refinements) to be applied. Bear in mind that most of the vaccines in development require a booster after the first shot. They also need several weeks to be fully effective after that. The most worrying thing for me is that the government is setting a vaccine up as a miracle cure when it's going to need nearly two months from first dose to be protective. It'll just give more ammunition to the social-irresponsibility crowd (probably America's worst export) to open everything up immediately.
Good point. I was wondering the same about how quickly it starts to become effective. If a few weeks then we can all forget totally about a working vaccine this season.
Which means the 'moonshot' bonkers briefing to this morning's Telegraph about sorting all this by Xmas was once again blather and optimistic nonsense.
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
My parents just bought one so they could spend more time outside in their garden. Lucky swine are in just the right bit of Essex to avoid most of the winter weather. They got a metal one and like it a lot. They did say they need to light it a fair distance (an hour or so) in advance so it gets up to temperature. It's also not enormously easy to light, at least if you're my father (which probably means they're extremely easy to use for the rest of the population).
Use pine cones to start it. Will light immediately and get hot very quickly. We use for our stoves also.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
One of the reasons I want a full parliamentary debate on all this is to allow MPs to start asking some searching questions on why ministers think they have it right and Sweden and Tegnell have it so very wrong.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
Wonder if she might pull the plug for the month of October while the furlough scheme is still in effect. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it might be a necessary step.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
If they have all had it they may as well carry on as normal at uni
(a) debility and disablement in a large minority (b) other university people - including staff - are not all young
basic legal liability to staff and visitors and students makes that an impossible policy for a uni to adopt - never mind the locals in the towns and cities involved.
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.
IMHO decriminalising possession of drugs is the wrong way round. Think about smoking. The way it got minimised was by encouraging non-use by every possible means while it was and is still completely legal to produce the stuff. Given that there are a small number of Mr Bigs, career criminals at the top, good at keeping out of trouble, who are going to try to sell drugs if they can the only practical way to stop is is by reducing demand. So it is demand for drugs which should receive maximum discouragement, not supply.
Mine, a present, sat there for years unused, but we use it and a fire pit regularly now. No advice on what to get though. Make sure you season first with a couple of small fires.
Thanks.
I like small fires. Good practice for the big ones.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
One of the reasons I want a full parliamentary debate on all this is to allow MPs to start asking some searching questions on why ministers think they have it right and Sweden and Tegnell have it so very wrong.
I suspect the Swedish differences in behaviour and population density explain it - but it would be good to know. Also with the 10 pm pub curfew supposedly based on the science.
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......
Doesn't that assume the scrapping of the minimum wage?
You could argue there is no need for a minimum wage if you have ubi
In which case you can see the point @Malmesbury is making. There would be constant arguments about who should be entitled to receive UBI. Some of an anti-immigration persuasion may think that UBI and no minimum wage is a good way to get what they want, but somehow I don't think it would be the end of the issue.
Keeping the minimum wage *and* having UBI would be bizarre. The UBI is there to make sure that everyone gets the minimum....
Even if you did mix it, the citizens would be (UBI + wage) vs (wage) for non-citizens.
The issue then would be (a) black market employment and (b) people arguing that it is so unfair that they can't just import more cheap labour.
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 whole point of UBI is that every other benefit needs to disappear. An exception can be made for the disabled requiring care but that’s it. It replaces the state pension and pension benefit too.
The big one is housing benefit. UBI cant work if HB is retained. Some people will lose massively from this and be very noisy about it, especially in London.
To make it revenue neutral you’d want a flat rate of income tax of around 45% with no allowance - note that this is much more generous than the current universal credit effective tax rate of over 60%. Big losers there would be middle income singletons, many of whom also have student loans to pay.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
One of the reasons I want a full parliamentary debate on all this is to allow MPs to start asking some searching questions on why ministers think they have it right and Sweden and Tegnell have it so very wrong.
It’s all,very relaxed in my bit of Spain, masks everywhere, going out for a meal tonight, max group six as we’re going over the border, will be in and out before it gets busy. Tables two meters apart, staff masked up, rate per 100,000 on the downward trend, enjoy now responsibly is the motto as it could all be different in two weeks time.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
From a couple of friends of the family we used to sail with, the reason for that is because the Swedes took the public health advice seriously. Their restaurants all have distancing rules and enforce them heavily (this was Malmo) and the public voluntarily reduced their contact. Lots and lots of home working too. There's a very strong tradition of social responsibility in Sweden and everyone took it seriously. They also have really strong public health messaging (not undermined by 50 mile eye tests). Oh, and they're implementing local lockdowns more recently to deal with an increase in cases. It isn't as simple as "sweden right", there are lots of moving parts to a public health campaign. It's possible if we'd closed our borders in early February (around when that chap came back from the conference in Singapore with the Covid) and then adopted strong social distancing rules, but not a full lockdown we would have been in a similar position, but we dicked about for a full month pretending we were immune instead.
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.
That seems to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon made it pretty clear last week that she wanted to close pubs but wasn't sure of the financial support from the government. I suspect we'll see a reverse ferret on that in a couple of weeks when this proposed "circuit-breaker" gets initiated (and probably extended).
Yes, the issue was financial support and the extension of the UK Gmt schemes involved. You are probably right, especially when the students start coming back to more English universities.
Wonder if she might pull the plug for the month of October while the furlough scheme is still in effect. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it might be a necessary step.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
If they have all had it they may as well carry on as normal at uni
(a) debility and disablement in a large minority (b) other university people - including staff - are not all young
basic legal liability to staff and visitors and students makes that an impossible policy for a uni to adopt - never mind the locals in the towns and cities involved.
All that will have already happened.unless you can still spread it after you have had it then if the majority have had it then they should just carry on.
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's pretty clear that the health authorities are using the flu vaccination programme this year as a dry run and stress test for any eventual COVID vaccine in the spring. I'd expect the same priority process (with some refinements) to be applied. Bear in mind that most of the vaccines in development require a booster after the first shot. They also need several weeks to be fully effective after that. The most worrying thing for me is that the government is setting a vaccine up as a miracle cure when it's going to need nearly two months from first dose to be protective. It'll just give more ammunition to the social-irresponsibility crowd (probably America's worst export) to open everything up immediately.
Good point. I was wondering the same about how quickly it starts to become effective. If a few weeks then we can all forget totally about a working vaccine this season.
Which means the 'moonshot' bonkers briefing to this morning's Telegraph about sorting all this by Xmas was once again blather and optimistic nonsense.
They just don't learn do they?
An endless succession of garden bridges greets the British public.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
One of the reasons I want a full parliamentary debate on all this is to allow MPs to start asking some searching questions on why ministers think they have it right and Sweden and Tegnell have it so very wrong.
Italy is the same, everybody is out, things are open and busy, life feels normal, the only difference is masks are everywhere.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
From a couple of friends of the family we used to sail with, the reason for that is because the Swedes took the public health advice seriously. Their restaurants all have distancing rules and enforce them heavily (this was Malmo) and the public voluntarily reduced their contact. Lots and lots of home working too. There's a very strong tradition of social responsibility in Sweden and everyone took it seriously. They also have really strong public health messaging (not undermined by 50 mile eye tests). Oh, and they're implementing local lockdowns more recently to deal with an increase in cases. It isn't as simple as "sweden right", there are lots of moving parts to a public health campaign. It's possible if we'd closed our borders in early February (around when that chap came back from the conference in Singapore with the Covid) and then adopted strong social distancing rules, but not a full lockdown we would have been in a similar position, but we dicked about for a full month pretending we were immune instead.
Thought-provoking piece by Matthew Parris in The Times this morning:
"... no statute can capture what common sense dictates. So we are left with rulebooks that can`t be enforced, and a weak sense of responsibility on the part of the individual who thought all this was now the state`s business. The left has never understood, nor the right thought through, the relationship between the bloating of the statute book and the shrivelling of individual responsibility" and:
"On Covid-19 our masters have underestimated us and discounted the potential force of voluntary action shaped by private judgement.They`re in danger now of critically weakening these social bulwarks to public order by confounding us with a great skein of intrusive and overly specific instructions, leaving no margin for the application of common sense."
Problem is any suggestion of one using their common sense gets immediate screeching from the media about too confusing and hours of them talking about how to avoid all rules...that is unless a devolved government say it, then its fine.
Unfortunately so. The cry for detail on everything was never sustainable.
Report from a friend currently sailing in Sweden. Says the mood there is totally different. Happy, normal life, corona barely noticeable, masks non-existent.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
From a couple of friends of the family we used to sail with, the reason for that is because the Swedes took the public health advice seriously. Their restaurants all have distancing rules and enforce them heavily (this was Malmo) and the public voluntarily reduced their contact. Lots and lots of home working too. There's a very strong tradition of social responsibility in Sweden and everyone took it seriously. They also have really strong public health messaging (not undermined by 50 mile eye tests). Oh, and they're implementing local lockdowns more recently to deal with an increase in cases. It isn't as simple as "sweden right", there are lots of moving parts to a public health campaign. It's possible if we'd closed our borders in early February (around when that chap came back from the conference in Singapore with the Covid) and then adopted strong social distancing rules, but not a full lockdown we would have been in a similar position, but we dicked about for a full month pretending we were immune instead.
Pretty much spot on
I don't understand how these starry eyed comments about Sweden can be made.
The death rate from COVID in Sweden is between 5 and 10 times higher than its peer countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark.
Comments
My cunning plan is - with a likely ban on household indoor visits - to sit in the garden with a couple of mates, each 2m apart, on cold, clear winter evenings with the wood burner in the middle.
So might only be used this covid season.
But the Labour Party was morally and politically bankrupt this time last year.
I also think we might see students told to isolate for two weeks over the October Holidays during the circuit break and then allowed to return to their family homes to complete their courses. Seems like Halls of Residence are as bad as cruise liners for spread, and you can't anchor them offshore.
I am struggling with the choice between clay (seems to have maintenance issues in a wet climate) and a metal one (probably have to be self-assembly).
I reckon the clay, traditional design will burn better.
“Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question, ...”
And as HYUFD would point out (and did the other day) the RCs seem to have lined up with the mainstream C of S in giving some support to the Tories, at leasr in the UK - no i dea if that is true in Scotland. While the links of eg the Labour party with RC Irish folk have collapsed in recent years (much to Slab's indignation).
Nonsense. A good lungful of burnt birch will see off this pesky little bug, you mark my words.
Wow!
That is all.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/18750934.covid-alcohol-spray-grinds-oxford-uniteds-team-bus-halt/
OXFORD United's challenging week hit a bizarre new low at lunchtime when their coach would not start.
As part of coronavirus precautions, an alcohol-based spray is deployed once everyone is on board.
But it triggered the breathalyser used by the driver as a safety measure, which left the squad stranded at their hotel half an hour away from Accrington Stanley.
The Swedes were either bravely right, or very lucky, or a mixture of both
Which means the 'moonshot' bonkers briefing to this morning's Telegraph about sorting all this by Xmas was once again blather and optimistic nonsense.
They just don't learn do they?
(b) other university people - including staff - are not all young
basic legal liability to staff and visitors and students makes that an impossible policy for a uni to adopt - never mind the locals in the towns and cities involved.
I like small fires. Good practice for the big ones.
Even if you did mix it, the citizens would be (UBI + wage) vs (wage) for non-citizens.
The issue then would be (a) black market employment and (b) people arguing that it is so unfair that they can't just import more cheap labour.
The big one is housing benefit. UBI cant work if HB is retained. Some people will lose massively from this and be very noisy about it, especially in London.
To make it revenue neutral you’d want a flat rate of income tax of around 45% with no allowance - note that this is much more generous than the current universal credit effective tax rate of over 60%. Big losers there would be middle income singletons, many of whom also have student loans to pay.
The death rate from COVID in Sweden is between 5 and 10 times higher than its peer countries - Norway, Finland, Denmark.