Universities are nowadays run by a cadre of administrators, many of whom are erstwhile academics who saw better opportunities for advancement away from teaching and research. Generally speaking they have little interest in teaching or research except in so far as it generates bums on seats or research grants. Halls of residence are a source of income.
They should have foreseen the disaster unfolding for the new academic year when the iceberg hove into view six months ago. If off-campus distance learning is now the preferred mode of delivery then why should any young person sign up to their particular courses when there are tried and tested ones on offer from the Open University, MIT and Harvard?
With the traditional on-campus student experience a chimera, the universities face a bleak prospect and before long will be cap in hand to the government which will extract efficiencies in the form of mergers and consolidation across the sector. After the dust has settled academia could revert to what it was half a century ago. In the process hopefully that will entail loosening the limpet-like grip that administrators currently have on the institutions.
So scope for long term improvement, but it will have been paid for by the tribulations of the current cohort of students.
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
I have to say that on an issue as important as this two wrongs do not make a right and we have to be careful not to encourage or excuse further bad behaviour at the detriment of our health and economic well-being
The way Boris behaved with Cummings, Williamson, and IMB were wholly unacceptable and I hope his tenure in no 10 terminates in early 21after brexit conclusion on the 31st December
The Cummings incident doesn't excuse further bad behaviour; it explains bad behaviour. People stop cooperating when they feel they are being taken for mugs.
P.S. LOL at "brexit conclusion on the 31st December"!
It will be deal or no deal on the 31st December
It will be 20 mile lorry tailbacks, however you slice it. It's the visuals that destroy incompetent governments: traffic jams, empty shelves, mass graves.
It maybe could , but it may see a deal that provides a period to implement the arrangements
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
Does he allow the Brady amendment and allow parliament to assert its rights over the Executive.
I know what Bercow would do...
I have mixed feelings on this
I agree with the proposition that HMG should have more scrutiny but am wary that in such a fast and rapidly moving environment they must have the ability to act swiftly where needed
Then call an emergency session, none of the changes, not even the original full lockdown was implemented with immediate effect. The most recent restrictions had four days from announcement to implementation. That's plenty of time to get a debate and walk through the lobbies.
Like Al Capone this gangster may be banged up for tax evasion rather than the other crimes.
Which might be a bigger worry for Trump than losing the election.
I suspect that if Trump loses the election he will be spending a lot of time in countries which don't have extradition treaties regarding tax offences.
Sorry Scotland...
Perhaps with his friends in Turkey ? Where he’s actually paid some tax.
Oh come on, Vladimir will welcome him with open arms. They're already putting down the red carpet at his favorite Gulag.
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
Reacting to the random idea generator who has the only ear of our PM...
Does he allow the Brady amendment and allow parliament to assert its rights over the Executive.
I know what Bercow would do...
I have mixed feelings on this
I agree with the proposition that HMG should have more scrutiny but am wary that in such a fast and rapidly moving environment they must have the ability to act swiftly where needed
People keep saying this, but there is surely a counter argument that a bit less haste and more thought might actually be beneficial in the long run. One of the most impressive things the guy from Sweden says repeatedly (and ignoring all the wider nonsense about “following the Swedish model” - propagated in the media) is that they decided early on on a level of compliance and rules that they thought the public at large would be prepared to accept for the long run, also providing a level of certainty to businesses and others, and generally stuck to it - only making tweaks where it was clear that certain measures weren’t working as intended (eg. he accepts mistakes were made in carehomes). But also made no promises (to the most affected businesses in particular) about a medium term ambition of having everything return to what is was before (compare with the U.K. reopening which seemed to be set on a path to reopening everything, probably long before the virus would be gone).
And importantly this is also beneficial for good government - because the health system etc can make plans for levels of provision that they need to make available and/or retain emergency capacity (which can be ramped your or down as necessary). The first response to case numbers rising a bit more than hoped, is not to find some new “lockdown measure” to be imposed, but to activate some of the emergency capacity that has been set aside. And if course if numbers do rise a bit those at risk will just be that little bit more careful which will also bring beneficial outcomes.
Not, as in the U.K. - announcing some new measures one week - and then abandoning/toughening them two weeks later. In the meantime resulting in everyone making things worse by “capitalising” on the slightly looser measures whilst they are still in force. I’m sure all the talk of looming “London lockdowns” that has been going on for two weeks now is contributing to increased levels of socialising and pub going etc “while we still can”. It’s basic human nature - especially for those who don’t feel personally at risk.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Following on from above - We constantly hear people talking about “the new normal” in this country, but we are no closer after six months to knowing what that normal is. In Sweden they have their normal and this is mostly accepted.
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
The strategy appears to be to over react to events without full analysis of what they are doing just to be seen to be doing something. This leaves people and business totally confused by different measures in areas meters apart. The measures are not given long enough to take effect before they change them for tougher ones. All they will achieve is a pissed off population with many unwilling to cooperate and abandoning ALL safety measures rather than adhere to the most important ones of distancing and mask wearing.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
I have to say that on an issue as important as this two wrongs do not make a right and we have to be careful not to encourage or excuse further bad behaviour at the detriment of our health and economic well-being
The way Boris behaved with Cummings, Williamson, and IMB were wholly unacceptable and I hope his tenure in no 10 terminates in early 21after brexit conclusion on the 31st December
Why does Johnson have to stay to deliver Brexit? 80+ maj means that anybody (well apart from Grayling obviously) could finish it off at this point.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
An EFTA style relationship will work well for UK firms exporting to the EU, most of which will probably have closed down by the time we get there.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Whether or not it is ALLOWED to open bears little relation to whether it SHOULD open past 10pm (for the sale of alcohol), to which the answer is obviously, "no".
I seem to recall that, at some time in the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton said something about her opponent paying no taxes. His response was that 'that made him smart'!
I wonder if secretly many a taxpayer said, and will say again; 'Crafty old whatsit; sort of cunning guy we want at the top'. If it was disclosed that our PM was had managed to avoid paying anything to HMRC, would that do him good or harm?
Yes, a bit like calling military dead "suckers" Trump appeals to that individualistic selfish streak. Dodging tax and the draft is what many secretly would do if they could.
We know he is a con artist, so there is an element of lack of surprise to it all.
I don't think this will do him any harm with his base.
It might help Biden firm up his turnout a bit more.
I think it's got to be somewhat positive for Biden. Sure, it's no surprise, and there will be those who'll just think "yeah, I hate the taxman too" (like Berlusconi supporters in Italy). BUT it will remind waverers again of why he shouldn't be president. The kind of people who didn't turn out last time because they couldn't stand Clinton either. And, the stories about him losing loads of money and being hundreds of millions in debt, dent his claims to be a great business person.
No gamechanger but it's further evidence - to throw on the pile - of Trump's unelectability this time. He is out to 2.36 on betfair but that is still WAY too short. If the polls do not move significantly in his favour in the days following the first debate I predict the penny will drop and his price will collapse. My buy of Biden EC supremacy at 28 is a position I would not swap for all the tea in China. Roll on 3/11.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
We were members of EFTA from 1960 until we joined the EEC in 1973, we should never have left it in the first place
Minor question. How come Trump doesn't pay tax on his Presidential salary?
"Loses" carried over from elsewhere would be my guess although it does seem that the IRS is questioning those loses.
But presumably his Presidential salary isn’t linked to his business losses? I also know he said he wouldn’t take it - but a) I’m not sure that’s happened and b) are you allowed to extend such a decision to the tax due on it?
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
The strategy appears to be to over react to events without full analysis of what they are doing just to be seen to be doing something. This leaves people and business totally confused by different measures in areas meters apart. The measures are not given long enough to take effect before they change them for tougher ones. All they will achieve is a pissed off population with many unwilling to cooperate and abandoning ALL safety measures rather than adhere to the most important ones of distancing and mask wearing.
The over-reaction is probably inevitable given that the other setting the government has is not doing enough until it's too late.
Today's Times quotes a senior source saying that it couldn't do more last week because the public and the party weren't yet convinced of the need for more restrictions.
It also claims that Gove was all for doing more now, while Rishi led the resistance. Wonder who leaked that?
Whether or not it is ALLOWED to open bears little relation to whether it SHOULD open past 10pm (for the sale of alcohol), to which the answer is obviously, "no".
Quite. I assume this is another quirky side-effect of the fact that it's a Royal palace and therefore (apparently) exempt from most regulations - for example, the lifts are clearly barely in working order, but they don't need to replace them. Obviously the bars should shut at 10 - it's not as though there were many MPs there or late-night sessions were common anyway, and Strangers in particular is too narrow for social distancing aso shouldn't be open for inside drinking at all.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
The strategy appears to be to over react to events without full analysis of what they are doing just to be seen to be doing something. This leaves people and business totally confused by different measures in areas meters apart. The measures are not given long enough to take effect before they change them for tougher ones. All they will achieve is a pissed off population with many unwilling to cooperate and abandoning ALL safety measures rather than adhere to the most important ones of distancing and mask wearing.
I think it's to do as much as possible without incurring serious unpopularity with core voters, while distracting with tokenism - we might appoint a Brexiteer to run the BBC, etc. As a tactical approach for a month that might make cynical sense. As a strategy for dealing with a pandemic it sucks.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I seem to recall that, at some time in the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton said something about her opponent paying no taxes. His response was that 'that made him smart'!
I wonder if secretly many a taxpayer said, and will say again; 'Crafty old whatsit; sort of cunning guy we want at the top'. If it was disclosed that our PM was had managed to avoid paying anything to HMRC, would that do him good or harm?
Yes, a bit like calling military dead "suckers" Trump appeals to that individualistic selfish streak. Dodging tax and the draft is what many secretly would do if they could.
We know he is a con artist, so there is an element of lack of surprise to it all.
I don't think this will do him any harm with his base.
It might help Biden firm up his turnout a bit more.
I think it's got to be somewhat positive for Biden. Sure, it's no surprise, and there will be those who'll just think "yeah, I hate the taxman too" (like Berlusconi supporters in Italy). BUT it will remind waverers again of why he shouldn't be president. The kind of people who didn't turn out last time because they couldn't stand Clinton either. And, the stories about him losing loads of money and being hundreds of millions in debt, dent his claims to be a great business person.
No gamechanger but it's further evidence - to throw on the pile - of Trump's unelectability this time. He is out to 2.36 on betfair but that is still WAY too short. If the polls do not move significantly in his favour in the days following the first debate I predict the penny will drop and his price will collapse. My buy of Biden EC supremacy at 28 is a position I would not swap for all the tea in China. Roll on 3/11.
Trump won in 2016 so he clearly is not unelectable, the odds favour Biden and I now think Biden will pick up Arizona and Pennsylvania but if Trump holds Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Ohio or maybe loses 1 but adds Nevada and New Hampshire he will be re elected, it only takes a small swing to Trump after a good or OK performance in the debate tomorrow and that is possible
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
Being in EFTA does not mean being a satellite, as I said we were in EFTA for over a decade before we joined the EEC and in any case the EU wants to be a superpower to challenge the US and China so has its own pretensions.
I understand 10 million have downloaded including myself and it does look like the glitch has been resolved
However, I am not holding my breath for HMG to receive anything other than daily attacks over testing when in reality we are doing far more than anywhere in Europe and the app is encouraging
I've emailed all my 3000 contacts urging them to download it - many are Government critics, but I point out that the Government isn't actually trying to kill us so this is an occasion for sensible cooperation. I'm not, however, going as far as your claim that we are doing "far more than anywhere in Europe". I think you're getting a bit carried away there.
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
It's an interesting (in a bad way) question. In the scenario (which I hope we don't reach) that a major lockdown becomes the only choice (because it's that or many many dead people), how many governmental heads would have to roll?
None - the issue would really come down to how hard will police actually police it. And I can't see them rushing to police things unless the abuse is blatant as they really don't have the numbers.
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
But it can be enforced against businesses. So we will get non-enforcement against people, loss of businesses, employment etc and nothing effective done against the virus. The worst of all possible worlds.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
The strategy appears to be to over react to events without full analysis of what they are doing just to be seen to be doing something. This leaves people and business totally confused by different measures in areas meters apart. The measures are not given long enough to take effect before they change them for tougher ones. All they will achieve is a pissed off population with many unwilling to cooperate and abandoning ALL safety measures rather than adhere to the most important ones of distancing and mask wearing.
I think it's to do as much as possible without incurring serious unpopularity with core voters, while distracting with tokenism - we might appoint a Brexiteer to run the BBC, etc. As a tactical approach for a month that might make cynical sense. As a strategy for dealing with a pandemic it sucks.
Few bullet points from you, Nick, which would be the way you, or a govt you would be happy to be part of, would handle it.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
Being in EFTA does not mean being a satellite, as I said we were in EFTA for over a decade before we joined the EEC and in any case the EU wants to be a superpower to challenge the US and China so has its own pretensions.
It does if it means accepting current and future EU rules in areas that agreements cover, without having input into them. This is genuinely an uncomfortable place to be and one that both Leavers and Remainers have been in denial about.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
If you recall I voted Remain and personally have not had a problem with Brexit on EFTA terms, however I also know many working class Leavers voted Leave mainly to end free movement so in the short term at least EFTA/EEA will not be an option and certainly not for Boris given the views of his core vote.
However EFTA/EEA would be an option longer term as I said for a PM Sunak or Starmer
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
Being in EFTA does not mean being a satellite, as I said we were in EFTA for over a decade before we joined the EEC and in any case the EU wants to be a superpower to challenge the US and China so has its own pretensions.
It does if it means accepting current and future EU rules in areas that agreements cover, without having input into them. This is genuinely an uncomfortable place to be and one that both Leavers and Remainers have been in denial about.
Given that we were never going to be part of the EU superstate we were always going to end up in this position. Brexit just means that issue we would eventually encounter have arrived earlier but in ways that make us worse off than would otherwise be the case.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
Well fine but any serious illness takes months to recover from. This hasn't had time to count as long covid yet, it's short to medium term covid.
Never heard anyone fit and healthy under 60 still be not fully recovered from the flu after 6 months. With the rona it's 100% of people I know have had in their 50s.
Well fine but any serious illness takes months to recover from. This hasn't had time to count as long covid yet, it's short to medium term covid.
Never heard anyone fit and healthy under 60 still be not fully recovered from the flu after 6 months. With the rona it's 100% of people I know have had in their 50s.
Do you mean they have all recovered, or not at all?
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Nor would or will a full on national lockdown - because of Barnard Castle..
I have to say that on an issue as important as this two wrongs do not make a right and we have to be careful not to encourage or excuse further bad behaviour at the detriment of our health and economic well-being
The way Boris behaved with Cummings, Williamson, and IMB were wholly unacceptable and I hope his tenure in no 10 terminates in early 21after brexit conclusion on the 31st December
Why does Johnson have to stay to deliver Brexit? 80+ maj means that anybody (well apart from Grayling obviously) could finish it off at this point.
You could argue that Johnson/Cummings/Gove started it so they should finish it.
Might help everyone to then move on, once they go.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
But you must you are a dedicated member of the party responsible for the outcome, you will go on the doorsteps praising the outcome whatever that may be. Every single Tory member and many of their voters bear full responsibility for the outcomes of the dual crisis that the UK faces.
Actually donuts are a far too pedestrian activity for Mr Ace.
I have been known to drop a ring a two at the local hit it and quit it drift spot. My E46 330D is a donut/drift monster because it's got the 3.62 LSD from an M3 and the quicker 14.5:1 steering rack from a CSL in it. I did one in the supermarket carpark just last week with my wife in it. She went fucking mental.
I understand 10 million have downloaded including myself and it does look like the glitch has been resolved
However, I am not holding my breath for HMG to receive anything other than daily attacks over testing when in reality we are doing far more than anywhere in Europe and the app is encouraging
I've emailed all my 3000 contacts urging them to download it - many are Government critics, but I point out that the Government isn't actually trying to kill us so this is an occasion for sensible cooperation. I'm not, however, going as far as your claim that we are doing "far more than anywhere in Europe". I think you're getting a bit carried away there.
Name one country in Europe that are running more tests than we are please.
Does he allow the Brady amendment and allow parliament to assert its rights over the Executive.
I know what Bercow would do...
I have mixed feelings on this
I agree with the proposition that HMG should have more scrutiny but am wary that in such a fast and rapidly moving environment they must have the ability to act swiftly where needed
People keep saying this, but there is surely a counter argument that a bit less haste and more thought might actually be beneficial in the long run. One of the most impressive things the guy from Sweden says repeatedly (and ignoring all the wider nonsense about “following the Swedish model” - propagated in the media) is that they decided early on on a level of compliance and rules that they thought the public at large would be prepared to accept for the long run, also providing a level of certainty to businesses and others, and generally stuck to it - only making tweaks where it was clear that certain measures weren’t working as intended (eg. he accepts mistakes were made in carehomes). But also made no promises (to the most affected businesses in particular) about a medium term ambition of having everything return to what is was before (compare with the U.K. reopening which seemed to be set on a path to reopening everything, probably long before the virus would be gone).
And importantly this is also beneficial for good government - because the health system etc can make plans for levels of provision that they need to make available and/or retain emergency capacity (which can be ramped your or down as necessary). The first response to case numbers rising a bit more than hoped, is not to find some new “lockdown measure” to be imposed, but to activate some of the emergency capacity that has been set aside. And if course if numbers do rise a bit those at risk will just be that little bit more careful which will also bring beneficial outcomes.
Not, as in the U.K. - announcing some new measures one week - and then abandoning/toughening them two weeks later. In the meantime resulting in everyone making things worse by “capitalising” on the slightly looser measures whilst they are still in force. I’m sure all the talk of looming “London lockdowns” that has been going on for two weeks now is contributing to increased levels of socialising and pub going etc “while we still can”. It’s basic human nature - especially for those who don’t feel personally at risk.
Whatever you think of the Swedish model (and I think it utterly inappropriate for the UK) the point about consistent policy is a strong one. It's difficult to get the public to comply with government advice/instructions. When the changes in instructions are as frequent (and apparently ill thought out) as they have been, it steadily becomes impossible.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Me too. "Punching above its weight in world affairs" suggests to me (directly) that a nation does want to be an important power in the world.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
Governments have never communicated clear instructions on quarantine. They don't even use the word "quarantine". Contrast that with countries that have dealt successfully with Covid-19.
Well fine but any serious illness takes months to recover from. This hasn't had time to count as long covid yet, it's short to medium term covid.
Never heard anyone fit and healthy under 60 still be not fully recovered from the flu after 6 months. With the rona it's 100% of people I know have had in their 50s.
Still unwell.
With the flu you are usually back on your feet and fully well within 2 weeks. With Covid even when you are no longer ill you are still nowhere near 100% For example 1 just look at Boris.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
Being in EFTA does not mean being a satellite, as I said we were in EFTA for over a decade before we joined the EEC and in any case the EU wants to be a superpower to challenge the US and China so has its own pretensions.
Though the EFTA:EEC balance in the 1960's was a lot more equal than the EFTA:EU balance today.
I agree with you that EEA alignment is the best thing on offer, once you rule out EU membership. But I can't see why we are going the long way round. Do Boris, Dom and their followers have to be given the chance to visibly fail, even though that failure is utterly predictable and horribly expensive, before we embark on a path that leads to relative success? And if it's for immigration control, what makes you think that people will want to give them up?
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Me too. "Punching above its weight in world affairs" suggests to me (directly) that a nation does want to be an important power in the world.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
Of course, as was shown in Afghan and Iraq, "punching above our weight" meant losing. I'm sure there is an economic relations equivalent.
I understand 10 million have downloaded including myself and it does look like the glitch has been resolved
However, I am not holding my breath for HMG to receive anything other than daily attacks over testing when in reality we are doing far more than anywhere in Europe and the app is encouraging
I've emailed all my 3000 contacts urging them to download it - many are Government critics, but I point out that the Government isn't actually trying to kill us so this is an occasion for sensible cooperation. I'm not, however, going as far as your claim that we are doing "far more than anywhere in Europe". I think you're getting a bit carried away there.
Name one country in Europe that are running more tests than we are please.
Governments have never communicated clear instructions on quarantine. They don't even use the word "quarantine". Contrast that with countries that have dealt successfully with Covid-19.
They haven't been able to mention the word since the Barnard Castle escapade.
I seem to recall that, at some time in the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton said something about her opponent paying no taxes. His response was that 'that made him smart'!
I wonder if secretly many a taxpayer said, and will say again; 'Crafty old whatsit; sort of cunning guy we want at the top'. If it was disclosed that our PM was had managed to avoid paying anything to HMRC, would that do him good or harm?
Yes, a bit like calling military dead "suckers" Trump appeals to that individualistic selfish streak. Dodging tax and the draft is what many secretly would do if they could.
We know he is a con artist, so there is an element of lack of surprise to it all.
I don't think this will do him any harm with his base.
It might help Biden firm up his turnout a bit more.
I think it's got to be somewhat positive for Biden. Sure, it's no surprise, and there will be those who'll just think "yeah, I hate the taxman too" (like Berlusconi supporters in Italy). BUT it will remind waverers again of why he shouldn't be president. The kind of people who didn't turn out last time because they couldn't stand Clinton either. And, the stories about him losing loads of money and being hundreds of millions in debt, dent his claims to be a great business person.
No gamechanger but it's further evidence - to throw on the pile - of Trump's unelectability this time. He is out to 2.36 on betfair but that is still WAY too short. If the polls do not move significantly in his favour in the days following the first debate I predict the penny will drop and his price will collapse. My buy of Biden EC supremacy at 28 is a position I would not swap for all the tea in China. Roll on 3/11.
Trump won in 2016 so he clearly is not unelectable, the odds favour Biden and I now think Biden will pick up Arizona and Pennsylvania but if Trump holds Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Ohio or maybe loses 1 but adds Nevada and New Hampshire he will be re elected, it only takes a small swing to Trump after a good or OK performance in the debate tomorrow and that is possible
Unelectable THIS TIME is what I have always said - and say with more confidence than ever now that the polling evidence is in line with my intuition. I think Trump will do well to keep the EC margin below 150. It's all about Biden from here on in for me. His health needs to hold up and he needs to avoid any calamities, either in the debates or otherwise. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He's crude and one dimensional. He can chase it using ever more desperate measures - and no doubt will - but in doing so he will only firm up the vote against him. The bottom line is that after 4 years of seeing him in the job there are not enough terminal suckers in America to give him another 4.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the UK should have ambitions to be a force for the good. But it won't be able to accept its new satellite status unless it drops its pretensions. In the mean time the perceived value of the United Kingdom is being trashed, which I'm not happy about.
Being in EFTA does not mean being a satellite, as I said we were in EFTA for over a decade before we joined the EEC and in any case the EU wants to be a superpower to challenge the US and China so has its own pretensions.
Though the EFTA:EEC balance in the 1960's was a lot more equal than the EFTA:EU balance today.
I agree with you that EEA alignment is the best thing on offer, once you rule out EU membership. But I can't see why we are going the long way round. Do Boris, Dom and their followers have to be given the chance to visibly fail, even though that failure is utterly predictable and horribly expensive, before we embark on a path that leads to relative success? And if it's for immigration control, what makes you think that people will want to give them up?
Boris and Dom campaigned on a platform for Vote Leave that included a points based immigration system to replace free movement for EU migrants, so yes they have to deliver what they promised.
As I said it would take a PM Sunak or Starmer to shift to EFTA/EEA and the people who oppose free movement above all else may than shift back to Farage and the Brexit Party but they are only a minority of the electorate
Well fine but any serious illness takes months to recover from. This hasn't had time to count as long covid yet, it's short to medium term covid.
Never heard anyone fit and healthy under 60 still be not fully recovered from the flu after 6 months. With the rona it's 100% of people I know have had in their 50s.
Do you mean they have all recovered, or not at all?
The latter. Sent you a message woth some friends experience. If this was anything like the flu I'd be with the herd immunity lot. It simply isn't
Morning Folks! Always nice to wake to a nice story about the Great Orange Berk. Now then, will it damage him?
Well, it certainly won't do him any good. Any harm depends on how you interpret it. Most of his base will simply disregard it in the same way they disregard all manner of shit about the GOB. Not all of them are suckers nevertheless and there will be some for whom this is too much. Then there are independents. It won't be a good look to them. For the rest it just confirms what they thought anyway and motivates them to mail those ballot papers by return of post.
If biden holds his position in the polls and has this lead on the day before the election, he will have around a 95% probability of winning. Every day that passes where trump does not start closing the gap is good for biden and good for everyone except for mrEd. This tax story is the reason why trump won't start closing the gap today.
Does he allow the Brady amendment and allow parliament to assert its rights over the Executive.
I know what Bercow would do...
I have mixed feelings on this
I agree with the proposition that HMG should have more scrutiny but am wary that in such a fast and rapidly moving environment they must have the ability to act swiftly where needed
People keep saying this, but there is surely a counter argument that a bit less haste and more thought might actually be beneficial in the long run. One of the most impressive things the guy from Sweden says repeatedly (and ignoring all the wider nonsense about “following the Swedish model” - propagated in the media) is that they decided early on on a level of compliance and rules that they thought the public at large would be prepared to accept for the long run, also providing a level of certainty to businesses and others, and generally stuck to it - only making tweaks where it was clear that certain measures weren’t working as intended (eg. he accepts mistakes were made in carehomes). But also made no promises (to the most affected businesses in particular) about a medium term ambition of having everything return to what is was before (compare with the U.K. reopening which seemed to be set on a path to reopening everything, probably long before the virus would be gone).
And importantly this is also beneficial for good government - because the health system etc can make plans for levels of provision that they need to make available and/or retain emergency capacity (which can be ramped your or down as necessary). The first response to case numbers rising a bit more than hoped, is not to find some new “lockdown measure” to be imposed, but to activate some of the emergency capacity that has been set aside. And if course if numbers do rise a bit those at risk will just be that little bit more careful which will also bring beneficial outcomes.
Not, as in the U.K. - announcing some new measures one week - and then abandoning/toughening them two weeks later. In the meantime resulting in everyone making things worse by “capitalising” on the slightly looser measures whilst they are still in force. I’m sure all the talk of looming “London lockdowns” that has been going on for two weeks now is contributing to increased levels of socialising and pub going etc “while we still can”. It’s basic human nature - especially for those who don’t feel personally at risk.
Whatever you think of the Swedish model (and I think it utterly inappropriate for the UK) the point about consistent policy is a strong one. It's difficult to get the public to comply with government advice/instructions. When the changes in instructions are as frequent (and apparently ill thought out) as they have been, it steadily becomes impossible.
Yes, and the terminology has been terribly confused.
"Self-isolating" = mandatory quarantine because you're infectious, cannot leave the house, or is it "self-isolating" = staying mostly at home because worried about catching the virus, can pop to the shops and do exercise though.
"Social distancing guidelines" = stay at least 2m apart even outside, or is it "social distancing guidelines" = 1m apart maybe, outside doesn't matter, nor when sitting in pubs.
Even "rule of 6" could be interpreted in different ways.
I think they should have chosen better words right at the start. Instead of "self-isolate" they should just call it quarantine. Instead of "social distancing guidelines" they should have said "2m rule" or something like that.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that parliamentary debate, as suggested upthread, would improve this. Parliamentary debate doesn't seem to change the government's mind on policy, only on politics. And hearing some of our back-benchers interviewed on the radio, I think it's more likely to obfuscate than inform.
I understand 10 million have downloaded including myself and it does look like the glitch has been resolved
However, I am not holding my breath for HMG to receive anything other than daily attacks over testing when in reality we are doing far more than anywhere in Europe and the app is encouraging
I've emailed all my 3000 contacts urging them to download it - many are Government critics, but I point out that the Government isn't actually trying to kill us so this is an occasion for sensible cooperation. I'm not, however, going as far as your claim that we are doing "far more than anywhere in Europe". I think you're getting a bit carried away there.
Name one country in Europe that are running more tests than we are please.
Every leaver's national role model: Russia.
He meant to ask: "name two countries in europe that are running more tests than we are please"
I seem to recall that, at some time in the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton said something about her opponent paying no taxes. His response was that 'that made him smart'!
I wonder if secretly many a taxpayer said, and will say again; 'Crafty old whatsit; sort of cunning guy we want at the top'. If it was disclosed that our PM was had managed to avoid paying anything to HMRC, would that do him good or harm?
Yes, a bit like calling military dead "suckers" Trump appeals to that individualistic selfish streak. Dodging tax and the draft is what many secretly would do if they could.
We know he is a con artist, so there is an element of lack of surprise to it all.
I don't think this will do him any harm with his base.
It might help Biden firm up his turnout a bit more.
I think it's got to be somewhat positive for Biden. Sure, it's no surprise, and there will be those who'll just think "yeah, I hate the taxman too" (like Berlusconi supporters in Italy). BUT it will remind waverers again of why he shouldn't be president. The kind of people who didn't turn out last time because they couldn't stand Clinton either. And, the stories about him losing loads of money and being hundreds of millions in debt, dent his claims to be a great business person.
No gamechanger but it's further evidence - to throw on the pile - of Trump's unelectability this time. He is out to 2.36 on betfair but that is still WAY too short. If the polls do not move significantly in his favour in the days following the first debate I predict the penny will drop and his price will collapse. My buy of Biden EC supremacy at 28 is a position I would not swap for all the tea in China. Roll on 3/11.
Trump won in 2016 so he clearly is not unelectable, the odds favour Biden and I now think Biden will pick up Arizona and Pennsylvania but if Trump holds Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Ohio or maybe loses 1 but adds Nevada and New Hampshire he will be re elected, it only takes a small swing to Trump after a good or OK performance in the debate tomorrow and that is possible
Unelectable THIS TIME is what I have always said - and say with more confidence than ever now that the polling evidence is in line with my intuition. I think Trump will do well to keep the EC margin below 150. It's all about Biden from here on in for me. His health needs to hold up and he needs to avoid any calamities, either in the debates or otherwise. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He's crude and one dimensional. He can chase it using ever more desperate measures - and no doubt will - but in doing so he will only firm up the vote against him. The bottom line is that after 4 years of seeing him in the job there are not enough terminal suckers in America to give him another 4.
I`ve just topped up on my BF "Trump Electoral College Votes" range bet 180-209 at just over 7.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Me too. "Punching above its weight in world affairs" suggests to me (directly) that a nation does want to be an important power in the world.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
Of course, as was shown in Afghan and Iraq, "punching above our weight" meant losing. I'm sure there is an economic relations equivalent.
To be fair, the US "lost" as well. As did the USSR back in the day.
Such interventions have worked in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and would have done so in Bosnia had we had the mandate. Also, pre-emptive interventions, such as in the Baltic States and Black Sea, have deterred Russian expansionism there.
I seem to recall that, at some time in the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton said something about her opponent paying no taxes. His response was that 'that made him smart'!
I wonder if secretly many a taxpayer said, and will say again; 'Crafty old whatsit; sort of cunning guy we want at the top'. If it was disclosed that our PM was had managed to avoid paying anything to HMRC, would that do him good or harm?
Yes, a bit like calling military dead "suckers" Trump appeals to that individualistic selfish streak. Dodging tax and the draft is what many secretly would do if they could.
We know he is a con artist, so there is an element of lack of surprise to it all.
I don't think this will do him any harm with his base.
It might help Biden firm up his turnout a bit more.
I think it's got to be somewhat positive for Biden. Sure, it's no surprise, and there will be those who'll just think "yeah, I hate the taxman too" (like Berlusconi supporters in Italy). BUT it will remind waverers again of why he shouldn't be president. The kind of people who didn't turn out last time because they couldn't stand Clinton either. And, the stories about him losing loads of money and being hundreds of millions in debt, dent his claims to be a great business person.
No gamechanger but it's further evidence - to throw on the pile - of Trump's unelectability this time. He is out to 2.36 on betfair but that is still WAY too short. If the polls do not move significantly in his favour in the days following the first debate I predict the penny will drop and his price will collapse. My buy of Biden EC supremacy at 28 is a position I would not swap for all the tea in China. Roll on 3/11.
Trump won in 2016 so he clearly is not unelectable, the odds favour Biden and I now think Biden will pick up Arizona and Pennsylvania but if Trump holds Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Ohio or maybe loses 1 but adds Nevada and New Hampshire he will be re elected, it only takes a small swing to Trump after a good or OK performance in the debate tomorrow and that is possible
Unelectable THIS TIME is what I have always said - and say with more confidence than ever now that the polling evidence is in line with my intuition. I think Trump will do well to keep the EC margin below 150. It's all about Biden from here on in for me. His health needs to hold up and he needs to avoid any calamities, either in the debates or otherwise. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He's crude and one dimensional. He can chase it using ever more desperate measures - and no doubt will - but in doing so he will only firm up the vote against him. The bottom line is that after 4 years of seeing him in the job there are not enough terminal suckers in America to give him another 4.
Even now about 43/44% of US voters will vote for Trump, he got 46% in 2016 so that is only a small swing from Trump to Biden, if Trump has a good performance in the debates that support could easily swing back
"Paid no federal income tax" makes me wonder about this, what about other taxes? The statement is meaningless without knowing that. Also hasn't he donated his salary since 2016, which would presumably have tax implications.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Me too. "Punching above its weight in world affairs" suggests to me (directly) that a nation does want to be an important power in the world.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
Of course, as was shown in Afghan and Iraq, "punching above our weight" meant losing. I'm sure there is an economic relations equivalent.
To be fair, the US "lost" as well. As did the USSR back in the day.
Such interventions have worked in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and would have done so in Bosnia had we had the mandate. Also, pre-emptive interventions, such as in the Baltic States and Black Sea, have deterred Russian expansionism there.
Oh yes. But for different reasons (political will to continue, mainly). I'm speaking specifically of the UK's TAOR in each theatre.
Actually donuts are a far too pedestrian activity for Mr Ace.
I have been known to drop a ring a two at the local hit it and quit it drift spot. My E46 330D is a donut/drift monster because it's got the 3.62 LSD from an M3 and the quicker 14.5:1 steering rack from a CSL in it. I did one in the supermarket carpark just last week with my wife in it. She went fucking mental.
The only bit of this I understood was the last four words. I guess it's about a car or something?
Minor question. How come Trump doesn't pay tax on his Presidential salary?
"Loses" carried over from elsewhere would be my guess although it does seem that the IRS is questioning those loses.
But presumably his Presidential salary isn’t linked to his business losses? I also know he said he wouldn’t take it - but a) I’m not sure that’s happened and b) are you allowed to extend such a decision to the tax due on it?
Why would you have to pay tax on an income you don't receive? Anyway, I think the NYT investigation is about returns prior to the presidency.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
The second and third questions are juxtaposed, and have very similar responses, but are in almost direct opposition to each other.
I wonder if this affects the results.
I don't think Q2 and Q3 are in contradiction. You can think a country not very powerful but should still punch above its weight. Think Norway as an example of this.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Me too. "Punching above its weight in world affairs" suggests to me (directly) that a nation does want to be an important power in the world.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
Of course, as was shown in Afghan and Iraq, "punching above our weight" meant losing. I'm sure there is an economic relations equivalent.
No it doesn't, in Afghanistan the Taliban were removed from power and Bin Laden is now dead and even in Iraq despite all the problems a democratic government has replaced Saddam Hussein who is also now dead
I understand 10 million have downloaded including myself and it does look like the glitch has been resolved
However, I am not holding my breath for HMG to receive anything other than daily attacks over testing when in reality we are doing far more than anywhere in Europe and the app is encouraging
I've emailed all my 3000 contacts urging them to download it - many are Government critics, but I point out that the Government isn't actually trying to kill us so this is an occasion for sensible cooperation. I'm not, however, going as far as your claim that we are doing "far more than anywhere in Europe". I think you're getting a bit carried away there.
Name one country in Europe that are running more tests than we are please.
Every leaver's national role model: Russia.
Russia: 309,010 tests per million United Kingdom: 341,150 tests per million
Actually donuts are a far too pedestrian activity for Mr Ace.
I have been known to drop a ring a two at the local hit it and quit it drift spot. My E46 330D is a donut/drift monster because it's got the 3.62 LSD from an M3 and the quicker 14.5:1 steering rack from a CSL in it. I did one in the supermarket carpark just last week with my wife in it. She went fucking mental.
The only bit of this I understood was the last four words. I guess it's about a car or something?
Yeah Dura Ace has been revving his 1 litre Yaris hybrid on his driveway again.
"Paid no federal income tax" makes me wonder about this, what about other taxes? The statement is meaningless without knowing that. Also hasn't he donated his salary since 2016, which would presumably have tax implications.
I was wondering that as well. Would his main source of income really be from the payroll?
Actually donuts are a far too pedestrian activity for Mr Ace.
I have been known to drop a ring a two at the local hit it and quit it drift spot. My E46 330D is a donut/drift monster because it's got the 3.62 LSD from an M3 and the quicker 14.5:1 steering rack from a CSL in it. I did one in the supermarket carpark just last week with my wife in it. She went fucking mental.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
But you must you are a dedicated member of the party responsible for the outcome, you will go on the doorsteps praising the outcome whatever that may be. Every single Tory member and many of their voters bear full responsibility for the outcomes of the dual crisis that the UK faces.
The members of the Conservative party bear the greatest responsibility because their obsession with Brexit led them to choose a person to be PM who most knew was unfit for the office. We are now paying the price.
You could argue that the electorate also endorsed him but largely because by that stage the alternative was worse. The real culprits are that minuscule proportion of the electorate that are members of the Tory Party.
It was the party memberships that gave us a choice of Johnson or Corbyn at the last election. Personally I would revert to letting the MPs make the choice.
Comments
They should have foreseen the disaster unfolding for the new academic year when the iceberg hove into view six months ago. If off-campus distance learning is now the preferred mode of delivery then why should any young person sign up to their particular courses when there are tried and tested ones on offer from the Open University, MIT and Harvard?
With the traditional on-campus student experience a chimera, the universities face a bleak prospect and before long will be cap in hand to the government which will extract efficiencies in the form of mergers and consolidation across the sector. After the dust has settled academia could revert to what it was half a century ago. In the process hopefully that will entail loosening the limpet-like grip that administrators currently have on the institutions.
So scope for long term improvement, but it will have been paid for by the tribulations of the current cohort of students.
🤗🎻🍺
So the Government can announce anything they won't but it won't be enforced because it just isn't possible for anyone to enforce it.
What the hell is the government’s strategy? Does anyone know?
And importantly this is also beneficial for good government - because the health system etc can make plans for levels of provision that they need to make available and/or retain emergency capacity (which can be ramped your or down as necessary). The first response to case numbers rising a bit more than hoped, is not to find some new “lockdown measure” to be imposed, but to activate some of the emergency capacity that has been set aside. And if course if numbers do rise a bit those at risk will just be that little bit more careful which will also bring beneficial outcomes.
Not, as in the U.K. - announcing some new measures one week - and then abandoning/toughening them two weeks later. In the meantime resulting in everyone making things worse by “capitalising” on the slightly looser measures whilst they are still in force. I’m sure all the talk of looming “London lockdowns” that has been going on for two weeks now is contributing to increased levels of socialising and pub going etc “while we still can”. It’s basic human nature - especially for those who don’t feel personally at risk.
Common sense at last.
Belief in the UK being a force for the good in the World is down 10%
But presumably his Presidential salary isn’t linked to his business losses? I also know he said he wouldn’t take it - but a) I’m not sure that’s happened and b) are you allowed to extend such a decision to the tax due on it?
Today's Times quotes a senior source saying that it couldn't do more last week because the public and the party weren't yet convinced of the need for more restrictions.
It also claims that Gove was all for doing more now, while Rishi led the resistance. Wonder who leaked that?
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
TIA
However EFTA/EEA would be an option longer term as I said for a PM Sunak or Starmer
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/27/uk-market-flooded-by-inadequate-covid-tests-experts-suggest
https://twitter.com/deeksj/status/1261626759369424896
Now we know why Trump lied when he agreed to release his tax returns.
I feel as top as I did in my thirties. Until I look in the mirror only to see some old fucker looking back at me.
I wonder if this affects the results.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the wording.
Might help everyone to then move on, once they go.
~18% report adherence to quarantine when they are symptomatic (April 14 - August 5)
~11% report adherence to quarantine when asked to isolate by test and trace (June 8 - August 5)
https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1309145690992455682?s=20
It's difficult to get the public to comply with government advice/instructions. When the changes in instructions are as frequent (and apparently ill thought out) as they have been, it steadily becomes impossible.
The most generous way I could read this would be the UK should punch above it's weight in world affairs but *at the same time* not kid itself it's at the same level as the US or China.
So, an important world power, but very far from a superpower.
With the flu you are usually back on your feet and fully well within 2 weeks. With Covid even when you are no longer ill you are still nowhere near 100%
For example 1 just look at Boris.
I agree with you that EEA alignment is the best thing on offer, once you rule out EU membership. But I can't see why we are going the long way round. Do Boris, Dom and their followers have to be given the chance to visibly fail, even though that failure is utterly predictable and horribly expensive, before we embark on a path that leads to relative success? And if it's for immigration control, what makes you think that people will want to give them up?
As I said it would take a PM Sunak or Starmer to shift to EFTA/EEA and the people who oppose free movement above all else may than shift back to Farage and the Brexit Party but they are only a minority of the electorate
Every day that passes where trump does not start closing the gap is good for biden and good for everyone except for mrEd.
This tax story is the reason why trump won't start closing the gap today.
"Self-isolating" = mandatory quarantine because you're infectious, cannot leave the house,
or is it "self-isolating" = staying mostly at home because worried about catching the virus, can pop to the shops and do exercise though.
"Social distancing guidelines" = stay at least 2m apart even outside,
or is it "social distancing guidelines" = 1m apart maybe, outside doesn't matter, nor when sitting in pubs.
Even "rule of 6" could be interpreted in different ways.
I think they should have chosen better words right at the start. Instead of "self-isolate" they should just call it quarantine. Instead of "social distancing guidelines" they should have said "2m rule" or something like that.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that parliamentary debate, as suggested upthread, would improve this. Parliamentary debate doesn't seem to change the government's mind on policy, only on politics. And hearing some of our back-benchers interviewed on the radio, I think it's more likely to obfuscate than inform.
--AS
Such interventions have worked in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and would have done so in Bosnia had we had the mandate. Also, pre-emptive interventions, such as in the Baltic States and Black Sea, have deterred Russian expansionism there.
Also hasn't he donated his salary since 2016, which would presumably have tax implications.
United Kingdom: 341,150 tests per million
Perhaps you can explain how 309,010 > 341,150 in your world? I'll wait.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/
The members of the Conservative party bear the greatest responsibility because their obsession with Brexit led them to choose a person to be PM who most knew was unfit for the office. We are now paying the price.
You could argue that the electorate also endorsed him but largely because by that stage the alternative was worse. The real culprits are that minuscule proportion of the electorate that are members of the Tory Party.
It was the party memberships that gave us a choice of Johnson or Corbyn at the last election. Personally I would revert to letting the MPs make the choice.