Sweden recognised that a balance has to be found between the direct effects of the virus and the indirect effects of a lockdown.
Far be it for me to criticise a Social Democrat government, but the excess dead, over and above that of their nordic neighbours, might disagree. If only they could.
Is there anyone on here still willing to defend the government's handling of Covid?
That would depend which elements are being criticised and to what extent, as some issues may have been unavoidable and unmitigatable, others will be unavoidable but mitigatable, and others avoidable.
Difficulties arise when an issue might be attached generically, without indicating which of the three is relevant, and therefore how much the government is to blame, as in some cases it will be a lot, others a bit, and at least some perhaps not at all.
That might seem like splitting hairs, but I'd argue otherwise - making it a binary choice of defend or attack the handling is just silly, as not every aspect has been the same and even if every aspect was a failure, it wont have all be the same level of failure or have same requirement to fix.
The strange thing has been when problems have been clearly coming yet the same problem responses occur.
On lockdown as a whole, it was surely absolutely clear from the very start that you can only police these things with public consent and compliance, which would not last forever even though, at present, the majority are supportive of the very harshest measures. Additionally, surely clear that life does go on during even more virulent catastophes, therefore the effect of mitigation on that life would become increasingly relevant over time.
Again, I don't know why that seems to have surprised the government, and they've resisted trying to win over MPs who would likely back them on it when asked, as I feel like at the start of all this their advisers were talking about the impact of fatigue.
Have to say this is the first time in a while my wife and I are starting to feel isolated from everyone. Our out if town friends are now not having people over and less willing to come to London. There's some we haven't seen for over 6 months except over zoom and it's really started to become quite sad.
I'm seriously wondering how this all ends and if the government will ever decide that life goes on if the vaccines prove ineffective. I don't think Boris has it within him to order everyone go back to normal and live with the consequences of it. To me that means life in the UK is going to be shit for years and shows how dependent we are on a vaccine.
The problem is it seems the majority back lockdown and enforcement
The majority are wrong. A relative of mine commited suicide earlier today, he lived alone and I have no doubt had mental health issues, however, his situation had been made many times worse by the virus measures. I'm not posting this to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well, but lockdown is not consequence free as some seem to believe. The spectre of long term unemployment and everything that comes with hangs over the nation and no one is even talking about it.
Oh Max - I am so sorry to hear that. Sending you all love and condolences.
We had the same in our family with a nephew. The isolation does not help and, yes, lockdown is not a cost-free option. Your relative and mine are victims of Covid as well, as are those who loved and mourn and miss them.
Thanks, and to everyone else. As I said, it's not to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well and only met him a few times a year at family functions and weddings etc...
My worry is that the cure is worse than the disease. COVID is only part of what drove him to suicide, I think the ill thought out, confusing and inconsistent policies have played a big role in it. It is creating so much uncertainty for everyone in the country not knowing when or how they will be able to see family and friends, I'm sure the thought of another six months of restrictions would have been a lot to bear for him and so many others in the country.
At every step of this crisis the government has acted with inconsistency and without thought for those who aren't fortunate to live in loving family units or large houses with big gardens. I'm honestly ashamed to have been a member of the party, knowing now how little thought they have given the less fortunate in a time of such great need.
A post that does you great credit.
Makes me reflect on the fact that it's relatively easy for me to support the restrictions, with plenty of space, living in the country, no work or financial worries... It's very much worse for so many people across the country.
The people I most worry about, and you rarely hear any mention of them, are abused children, especially when schools were closed. During a full lockdown they've got no escape from often horrific family situations, made worse if the absuer is now around all day because of furlough or a lost job. A relative is a domestic abuse policeman and he told me he's seen his workload double.
Adults being abused is terrible, of course, but they are much more likely to be able to escape. But children are less likely to be able to walk out.
Sweden recognised that a balance has to be found between the direct effects of the virus and the indirect effects of a lockdown.
Far be it for me to criticise a Social Democrat government, but the excess dead, over and above that of their nordic neighbours, might disagree. If only they could.
I can well believe Sweden's approach, as with others, deserves careful consideration. But forgive me if I don't think that is what we're getting when they've been getting unfiltered praise from the very start from certain people and quarters. It's not like after assessment it is felt on balance they got it right, when that was the message being banged out from the start.
Sweden recognised that a balance has to be found between the direct effects of the virus and the indirect effects of a lockdown.
Far be it for me to criticise a Social Democrat government, but the excess dead, over and above that of their nordic neighbours, might disagree. If only they could.
I can well believe Sweden's approach, as with others, deserves careful consideration. But forgive me if I don't think that is what we're getting when they've been getting unfiltered praise from the very start from certain people and quarters. It's not like after assessment it is felt on balance they got it right, when that was the message being banged out from the start.
Certain people who have derided Sweden's general approach to communitarian society for 40 years. People will quarantine if they think they will be looked after. Rather than 2 generations of experience of becoming sick or disabled and being thrown into penury for example. It doesn't happen by accident.
The guy behind Sweden's strategy has advised the PM Sweden is currently tightening its restrictions.
And as I keep saying, if the UK followed the restrictions we wouldn't have problems but we don't.
Sweden didn't have these issues.
Sweden had a clear and consistent strategy and goal from the beginning. All of their policies have been along the lines of that strategy, people understand the rules and why they exist.
If you asked 100 people across the country what rules they currently live under and why those rules were in place and what the government's intentions are other than "reduce cases tomorrow" how many would be able to answer it. In Sweden the majority can confidently answer all of those.
TBF the UK's insane Devolution framework has not helped. It is simply mad that something as overwhelmingly important as a pandemic is not controlled UK-wide from Westminster. At the moment the system actively encourages the devolved governments to do something "a bit different" in the hope of appearing better than England, or simply to justify their existence. This leads to much greater confusion.
Sturgeon is terrible for this. Announcing new controls before London does, simply to fuck with London. Good for the Nats, bad for Scots and Brits.
Sweden has one unified government policy helmed from Stockholm, applied across the nation.
For this chaos, we can blame Blair's grossly inept, self-serving Devolution Settlement.
The rest of the blame must fall, however, on the politicians and scientists at the top of the London Establishment
The guy behind Sweden's strategy has advised the PM Sweden is currently tightening its restrictions.
And as I keep saying, if the UK followed the restrictions we wouldn't have problems but we don't.
Sweden didn't have these issues.
Sweden had a clear and consistent strategy and goal from the beginning. All of their policies have been along the lines of that strategy, people understand the rules and why they exist.
If you asked 100 people across the country what rules they currently live under and why those rules were in place and what the government's intentions are other than "reduce cases tomorrow" how many would be able to answer it. In Sweden the majority can confidently answer all of those.
TBF the UK's insane Devolution framework has not helped. It is simply mad that something as overwhelmingly important as a pandemic is not controlled UK-wide from Westminster. At the moment the system actively encourages the devolved governments to do something "a bit different" in the hope of appearing better than England, or simply to justify their existence. This leads to much greater confusion.
Sturgeon is terrible for this. Announcing new controls before London does, simply to fuck with London. Good for the Nats, bad for Scots and Brits.
Sweden has one unified government policy helmed from Stockholm, applied across the nation.
For this chaos, we can blame Blair's grossly inept, self-serving Devolution Settlement.
The rest of the blame must fall, however, on the politicians and scientists at the top of the London Establishment
Yep. Quite clearly Blair. You sound like a Corbynite moaning about Thatcher.
Have to say this is the first time in a while my wife and I are starting to feel isolated from everyone. Our out if town friends are now not having people over and less willing to come to London. There's some we haven't seen for over 6 months except over zoom and it's really started to become quite sad.
I'm seriously wondering how this all ends and if the government will ever decide that life goes on if the vaccines prove ineffective. I don't think Boris has it within him to order everyone go back to normal and live with the consequences of it. To me that means life in the UK is going to be shit for years and shows how dependent we are on a vaccine.
The problem is it seems the majority back lockdown and enforcement
The majority are wrong. A relative of mine commited suicide earlier today, he lived alone and I have no doubt had mental health issues, however, his situation had been made many times worse by the virus measures. I'm not posting this to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well, but lockdown is not consequence free as some seem to believe. The spectre of long term unemployment and everything that comes with hangs over the nation and no one is even talking about it.
Oh Max - I am so sorry to hear that. Sending you all love and condolences.
We had the same in our family with a nephew. The isolation does not help and, yes, lockdown is not a cost-free option. Your relative and mine are victims of Covid as well, as are those who loved and mourn and miss them.
Thanks, and to everyone else. As I said, it's not to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well and only met him a few times a year at family functions and weddings etc...
My worry is that the cure is worse than the disease. COVID is only part of what drove him to suicide, I think the ill thought out, confusing and inconsistent policies have played a big role in it. It is creating so much uncertainty for everyone in the country not knowing when or how they will be able to see family and friends, I'm sure the thought of another six months of restrictions would have been a lot to bear for him and so many others in the country.
At every step of this crisis the government has acted with inconsistency and without thought for those who aren't fortunate to live in loving family units or large houses with big gardens. I'm honestly ashamed to have been a member of the party, knowing now how little thought they have given the less fortunate in a time of such great need.
A post that does you great credit.
Makes me reflect on the fact that it's relatively easy for me to support the restrictions, with plenty of space, living in the country, no work or financial worries... It's very much worse for so many people across the country.
The people I most worry about, and you rarely hear any mention of them, are abused children, especially when schools were closed. During a full lockdown they've got no escape from often horrific family situations, made worse if the absuer is now around all day because of furlough or a lost job. A relative is a domestic abuse policeman and he told me he's seen his workload double.
Adults being abused is terrible, of course, but they are much more likely to be able to escape. But children are less likely to be able to walk out.
A very good point and a well argued case.
I think little consideration has been given to issues like this. Governments including our own have simply looked for the equilibrium between direct Covid deaths and economic prudence, and there probably isn't one.
Sean under his Lady G guise shows his complete lack of understanding of the history of these islands. Scotland has NEVER been part of England. Even before the devolution measures it had its separate legal system and to a large extent a different media. At general elections the Scottish pattern of results is totally different. Sturgeon is a political giant in comparison with her counterparts in London
Have to say this is the first time in a while my wife and I are starting to feel isolated from everyone. Our out if town friends are now not having people over and less willing to come to London. There's some we haven't seen for over 6 months except over zoom and it's really started to become quite sad.
I'm seriously wondering how this all ends and if the government will ever decide that life goes on if the vaccines prove ineffective. I don't think Boris has it within him to order everyone go back to normal and live with the consequences of it. To me that means life in the UK is going to be shit for years and shows how dependent we are on a vaccine.
The problem is it seems the majority back lockdown and enforcement
The majority are wrong. A relative of mine commited suicide earlier today, he lived alone and I have no doubt had mental health issues, however, his situation had been made many times worse by the virus measures. I'm not posting this to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well, but lockdown is not consequence free as some seem to believe. The spectre of long term unemployment and everything that comes with hangs over the nation and no one is even talking about it.
Oh Max - I am so sorry to hear that. Sending you all love and condolences.
We had the same in our family with a nephew. The isolation does not help and, yes, lockdown is not a cost-free option. Your relative and mine are victims of Covid as well, as are those who loved and mourn and miss them.
Thanks, and to everyone else. As I said, it's not to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well and only met him a few times a year at family functions and weddings etc...
My worry is that the cure is worse than the disease. COVID is only part of what drove him to suicide, I think the ill thought out, confusing and inconsistent policies have played a big role in it. It is creating so much uncertainty for everyone in the country not knowing when or how they will be able to see family and friends, I'm sure the thought of another six months of restrictions would have been a lot to bear for him and so many others in the country.
At every step of this crisis the government has acted with inconsistency and without thought for those who aren't fortunate to live in loving family units or large houses with big gardens. I'm honestly ashamed to have been a member of the party, knowing now how little thought they have given the less fortunate in a time of such great need.
This is the key virtue of the Swedish system. It's not lockdown-versus-total-freedom, we all know they had a soft, quasi-voluntary lockdown, which has hit their economy and cost lives.
BUT the huge advantage is that they looked ahead: they envisaged a "marathon, not a sprint", they knew there probably wouldn't be a vaccine for a long time (if ever) so they had to bring in regulations that were clear, and precise, and coherent, and which could be followed by the whole nation for a long time, without destroying the economy.
So far, it seems to me, they have been entirely vindicated, Yes, they have lost lives (more than their neighbours) but they are not wobbling all over the place, plunging businesses into peril and sending poor lonely people to the edge.
I literally have no idea what the rules are now in London. Rule of six? Bubbles? What? And soon there will be lockdown 2 with more complexity??
It is a monumental fuck up, and the cure is, as you say, worse than the affliction.
It is panic and over-reaction in government and among our senior leaders and scientists. (mind you, your best to spread panic and over-reaction here was the same game on a smaller stage).
My advice, do your best to live the life you want to lead, within the rules, and take whatever precautions you think are sensible. Leave the rest down to fate.
Nothing I am hearing in the UK media or have read here the past week or so makes me look forward to returning home. As far as I can ascertain from what I have picked up in Italy and Germany, people here are mostly hoping rather than despairing.
The guy behind Sweden's strategy has advised the PM Sweden is currently tightening its restrictions.
And as I keep saying, if the UK followed the restrictions we wouldn't have problems but we don't.
Sweden didn't have these issues.
Sweden had a clear and consistent strategy and goal from the beginning. All of their policies have been along the lines of that strategy, people understand the rules and why they exist.
If you asked 100 people across the country what rules they currently live under and why those rules were in place and what the government's intentions are other than "reduce cases tomorrow" how many would be able to answer it. In Sweden the majority can confidently answer all of those.
TBF the UK's insane Devolution framework has not helped. It is simply mad that something as overwhelmingly important as a pandemic is not controlled UK-wide from Westminster. At the moment the system actively encourages the devolved governments to do something "a bit different" in the hope of appearing better than England, or simply to justify their existence. This leads to much greater confusion.
Sturgeon is terrible for this. Announcing new controls before London does, simply to fuck with London. Good for the Nats, bad for Scots and Brits.
Sweden has one unified government policy helmed from Stockholm, applied across the nation.
For this chaos, we can blame Blair's grossly inept, self-serving Devolution Settlement.
The rest of the blame must fall, however, on the politicians and scientists at the top of the London Establishment
Like putting Boris in charge of it all is ever going to be the answer to anything.
Have to say this is the first time in a while my wife and I are starting to feel isolated from everyone. Our out if town friends are now not having people over and less willing to come to London. There's some we haven't seen for over 6 months except over zoom and it's really started to become quite sad.
I'm seriously wondering how this all ends and if the government will ever decide that life goes on if the vaccines prove ineffective. I don't think Boris has it within him to order everyone go back to normal and live with the consequences of it. To me that means life in the UK is going to be shit for years and shows how dependent we are on a vaccine.
The problem is it seems the majority back lockdown and enforcement
The majority are wrong. A relative of mine commited suicide earlier today, he lived alone and I have no doubt had mental health issues, however, his situation had been made many times worse by the virus measures. I'm not posting this to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well, but lockdown is not consequence free as some seem to believe. The spectre of long term unemployment and everything that comes with hangs over the nation and no one is even talking about it.
Oh Max - I am so sorry to hear that. Sending you all love and condolences.
We had the same in our family with a nephew. The isolation does not help and, yes, lockdown is not a cost-free option. Your relative and mine are victims of Covid as well, as are those who loved and mourn and miss them.
Thanks, and to everyone else. As I said, it's not to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well and only met him a few times a year at family functions and weddings etc...
My worry is that the cure is worse than the disease. COVID is only part of what drove him to suicide, I think the ill thought out, confusing and inconsistent policies have played a big role in it. It is creating so much uncertainty for everyone in the country not knowing when or how they will be able to see family and friends, I'm sure the thought of another six months of restrictions would have been a lot to bear for him and so many others in the country.
At every step of this crisis the government has acted with inconsistency and without thought for those who aren't fortunate to live in loving family units or large houses with big gardens. I'm honestly ashamed to have been a member of the party, knowing now how little thought they have given the less fortunate in a time of such great need.
This is the key virtue of the Swedish system. It's not lockdown-versus-total-freedom, we all know they had a soft, quasi-voluntary lockdown, which has hit their economy and cost lives.
BUT the huge advantage is that they looked ahead: they envisaged a "marathon, not a sprint", they knew there probably wouldn't be a vaccine for a long time (if ever) so they had to bring in regulations that were clear, and precise, and coherent, and which could be followed by the whole nation for a long time, without destroying the economy.
So far, it seems to me, they have been entirely vindicated, Yes, they have lost lives (more than their neighbours) but they are not wobbling all over the place, plunging businesses into peril and sending poor lonely people to the edge.
I literally have no idea what the rules are now in London. Rule of six? Bubbles? What? And soon there will be lockdown 2 with more complexity??
It is a monumental fuck up, and the cure is, as you say, worse than the affliction.
Part of the trouble has been that the Real Swedish Model (keep things under control in a sustainable way with long term minor restrictions) got mixed up with a Fantasy Swedish Model (protect the economy, protect freedom, don't need to do anything, magic herd immunity).
Having said that, the UK let things get so out of hand in March that hard lockdown was inevitable then- a thousand or so deaths a day wasn't a goer. Please let us not make that mistake again.
Conclusion- fantasies about Swedish models are not a reliable way to run one's life.
And people look at the ‘Swedish model’ as the decisions it has taken recently, and ignore the many foundations, from its style of government and politics, its social and cultural values, welfare safety nets, communitarian policies, and the rest, that have made it possible,
The Question Time spoof by Harry Enfield that someone posted recently is/was embarrassingly accurate. Can't remember whether it was on this thread or a previous one. It was from 2012 originally but I hadn't seen it until now.
Have to say this is the first time in a while my wife and I are starting to feel isolated from everyone. Our out if town friends are now not having people over and less willing to come to London. There's some we haven't seen for over 6 months except over zoom and it's really started to become quite sad.
I'm seriously wondering how this all ends and if the government will ever decide that life goes on if the vaccines prove ineffective. I don't think Boris has it within him to order everyone go back to normal and live with the consequences of it. To me that means life in the UK is going to be shit for years and shows how dependent we are on a vaccine.
The problem is it seems the majority back lockdown and enforcement
The majority are wrong. A relative of mine commited suicide earlier today, he lived alone and I have no doubt had mental health issues, however, his situation had been made many times worse by the virus measures. I'm not posting this to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well, but lockdown is not consequence free as some seem to believe. The spectre of long term unemployment and everything that comes with hangs over the nation and no one is even talking about it.
Oh Max - I am so sorry to hear that. Sending you all love and condolences.
We had the same in our family with a nephew. The isolation does not help and, yes, lockdown is not a cost-free option. Your relative and mine are victims of Covid as well, as are those who loved and mourn and miss them.
Thanks, and to everyone else. As I said, it's not to elicit sympathy, I didn't know him very well and only met him a few times a year at family functions and weddings etc...
My worry is that the cure is worse than the disease. COVID is only part of what drove him to suicide, I think the ill thought out, confusing and inconsistent policies have played a big role in it. It is creating so much uncertainty for everyone in the country not knowing when or how they will be able to see family and friends, I'm sure the thought of another six months of restrictions would have been a lot to bear for him and so many others in the country.
At every step of this crisis the government has acted with inconsistency and without thought for those who aren't fortunate to live in loving family units or large houses with big gardens. I'm honestly ashamed to have been a member of the party, knowing now how little thought they have given the less fortunate in a time of such great need.
This is the key virtue of the Swedish system. It's not lockdown-versus-total-freedom, we all know they had a soft, quasi-voluntary lockdown, which has hit their economy and cost lives.
BUT the huge advantage is that they looked ahead: they envisaged a "marathon, not a sprint", they knew there probably wouldn't be a vaccine for a long time (if ever) so they had to bring in regulations that were clear, and precise, and coherent, and which could be followed by the whole nation for a long time, without destroying the economy.
So far, it seems to me, they have been entirely vindicated, Yes, they have lost lives (more than their neighbours) but they are not wobbling all over the place, plunging businesses into peril and sending poor lonely people to the edge.
I literally have no idea what the rules are now in London. Rule of six? Bubbles? What? And soon there will be lockdown 2 with more complexity??
It is a monumental fuck up, and the cure is, as you say, worse than the affliction.
Part of the trouble has been that the Real Swedish Model (keep things under control in a sustainable way with long term minor restrictions) got mixed up with a Fantasy Swedish Model (protect the economy, protect freedom, don't need to do anything, magic herd immunity).
Having said that, the UK let things get so out of hand in March that hard lockdown was inevitable then- a thousand or so deaths a day wasn't a goer. Please let us not make that mistake again.
Conclusion- fantasies about Swedish models are not a reliable way to run one's life.
And people look at the ‘Swedish model’ as the decisions it has taken recently, and ignore the many foundations, from its style of government and politics, its social and cultural values, welfare safety nets, communitarian policies, and the rest, that have made it possible,
On a slightly lighter note, I came out of my house yesterday and gave such a huge sigh at the continued isolations living on my own for the last nearly-a-year that somebody walking their dog in the lane stopped and remarked upon it.
Incidentally, I haven't spotted any medical updates recently.
And I wish all the best to anyone with whatever they have - especially undergoing nasty treatment.
I have just had as close to an impending all clear for my Hairy Cell Leukemia as I am likely to get - very good response to monoclonal antibody treatment two months on, and a treatment plan of 3 month then 6 month checks to be followed by annual monitoring.
Then, in an attempt to deflect attention with a manufactured controversy, the president tweeted about the debate: “Joe Biden just announced that he will not agree to a Drug Test. Gee, I wonder why?”
There is no evidence that Biden is taking drugs.
Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, has responded to such claims in unusually blunt terms by stating: “Vice-President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn’t make a plan to stop Covid-19.”
Away from the dastardly C Word, back to the happier days of the B Word...
Chances of trading with EU on a tariff/quota free basis on 01 Jan now look much better than 50% no? Not to say that this government won’t cock up the implementation of leaving the customs union, a known challenge since soon after the vote. But good news on the tariff element perhaps around the corner.
Much like with the vaccine... good news around the corner too. Not to say this government won’t cock up the implementation of its mass rollout (vials, storage capacity etc...), a known challenge since we started work on a vaccine...
I knew relations between Webber and her CLP were troubled, but this quote from the Guardian is pretty damning:
"Labour party criticised Webbe for failing to inform the CLP about the charges in advance. “We are shocked at these developments. Since her election Claudia Webbe has chosen not to have had any dealings with the CLP. Against our express wishes she has remained an Islington councillor.
“We will support any action taken by the national party and the chief whip. The officers of the party will convene an emergency meeting to discuss these matters,” the spokesperson said"
Someone needs to tell Amercians to use pencils, paper and a room full of volunteers, just like most of the rest of the world.
Ransomware is the best thing that could happen to systems like this. If they vulnerable, we want them exploited as quickly and publicly as possible, and ransomware is a great way to make sure that happens.
Incidentally, I haven't spotted any medical updates recently.
And I wish all the best to anyone with whatever they have - especially undergoing nasty treatment.
I have just had as close to an impending all clear for my Hairy Cell Leukemia as I am likely to get - very good response to monoclonal antibody treatment two months on, and a treatment plan of 3 month then 6 month checks to be followed by annual monitoring.
Incidentally, I haven't spotted any medical updates recently.
And I wish all the best to anyone with whatever they have - especially undergoing nasty treatment.
I have just had as close to an impending all clear for my Hairy Cell Leukemia as I am likely to get - very good response to monoclonal antibody treatment two months on, and a treatment plan of 3 month then 6 month checks to be followed by annual monitoring.
Congratulations; very pleased for you. You and yours much be very relieved; it won't really kick in for a bit though, not until you put a note in your diary for 6 months hence.... check due!
Then, in an attempt to deflect attention with a manufactured controversy, the president tweeted about the debate: “Joe Biden just announced that he will not agree to a Drug Test. Gee, I wonder why?”
There is no evidence that Biden is taking drugs.
Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, has responded to such claims in unusually blunt terms by stating: “Vice-President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn’t make a plan to stop Covid-19.”
Biden is still a poor candidate and probably never was bright enough for the job but his campaign has had a professionalism, organisation and hard edge that Clinton completely lacked. From a distance I get the impression that they know what they have to do to win and they are doing it in spades.
I expect the debate tonight to be as dull as these things often prove to be with a no risk, don't upset the apple cart performance by Biden containing a couple of well rehearsed set pieces for the media but otherwise no hostages to fortune. He doesn't need to win the debate to win.
Morning all! Its off-topic I know but I have to admit to having laughed rather loudly at the Claudia Webbe story. No, not the matter that is sub judice, the reaction from her CLP. Which said that she has utterly ignored them and remains a councillor in Islington. But remember folks, the Corbynites hated Blair for the way he ignored local party democracy and imposed candidates from far away who refused to engage with the locals...
It's your website and you make the rules but I feel like doxxing is bad
Is it doxxing when everyone refers to LadyG as Sean?
Yes, everyone who does this needs to learn better netiquette. (Or is wrong, I don't care which.)
I feel after a person has convinced the site owner to delete all of their islamaphobic rantings (amongst other things) as it may damage their business dealings and vowed never to post again then they need to be a lot more careful about posting again.
Someone needs to tell Amercians to use pencils, paper and a room full of volunteers, just like most of the rest of the world.
Britain doesn't rely on a room full of volunteers. The ballot counters aren't just paid: they're on super-overtime.
What it depends on volunteers for - intensely supervised by those well-paid public servants - is scrutinising those well-paid public servants minutely. An infinitely more efficient and effective method of ensuring an honest count than tying up the nation's courts for months afterwards.
Then, in an attempt to deflect attention with a manufactured controversy, the president tweeted about the debate: “Joe Biden just announced that he will not agree to a Drug Test. Gee, I wonder why?”
There is no evidence that Biden is taking drugs.
Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, has responded to such claims in unusually blunt terms by stating: “Vice-President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn’t make a plan to stop Covid-19.”
Biden is still a poor candidate and probably never was bright enough for the job but his campaign has had a professionalism, organisation and hard edge that Clinton completely lacked. From a distance I get the impression that they know what they have to do to win and they are doing it in spades.
I expect the debate tonight to be as dull as these things often prove to be with a no risk, don't upset the apple cart performance by Biden containing a couple of well rehearsed set pieces for the media but otherwise no hostages to fortune. He doesn't need to win the debate to win.
Either that or there'll be some sort of 'off the wall' explosion from Trump, especially if he feels himself cornered.
Someone needs to tell Amercians to use pencils, paper and a room full of volunteers, just like most of the rest of the world.
Britain doesn't rely on a room full of volunteers. The ballot counters aren't just paid: they're on super-overtime.
What it depends on volunteers for - intensely supervised by those well-paid public servants - is scrutinising those well-paid public servants minutely. An infinitely more efficient and effective method of ensuring an honest count than tying up the nation's courts for months afterwards.
This point of vew is contradictory to some posters' views, on this forum, who believe that the state should not pay for public servants and "go away".
Why are you posting this on a Tuesday morning when there are public transport strikes in much of the country?
Because I went down to breakfast at 0730 and they were already all there.
Sunbeds, anyone?
You'd have to be brave to want to lie on a sunbed in this part of Germany today!
P.S. My experience of German tourists is they want to breakfast after 9am, but that is because that is when I go to breakfast when on holiday.
Maybe there is another lot waiting to come down later! But it was certainly the busiest I have seen breakfast at that time; in Italy and France I was typically on or almost on my own until 8am, as the only one with a dog who insists on an early start.
You are right, it’s a grey and drizzly morning here in the Black Forest, too. South of the Alps, summer is drawing to a close; North of the mountains, it is already autumn.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
It is shocking that so many new laws and new criminal offences are being created without any parliamentary vote or scrutiny whatsoever. No wonder a lot of MPs are pissed off.
At some point during the Brexit process government came up with the idea of getting some broad powers from a widely drawn general act, and then relaying on regulations being simply pronounced to implement all of the detail without having to trouble getting anyone’s agreement to it. It was a retrograde step and one that doesn’t seem to be going away.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
1. You can't meet people you don't live with even outdoors 2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym. 3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law 3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs 4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
PMs in my memory have stood down either immediately upon resigning or at the subsequent election.
Bozo throwing her out would a big, and risky, moment, for him. Not throwing her out also raises problems. The pressure is on for him to climb down. Again.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
PMs in my memory have stood down either immediately upon resigning or at the subsequent election.
Bozo throwing her out would a big, and risky, moment, for him. Not throwing her out also raises problems. The pressure is on for him to climb down. Again.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
1. You can't meet people you don't live with even outdoors 2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym. 3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law 3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs 4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
1. You can't meet people you don't live with even outdoors 2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym. 3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law 3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs 4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
The police aren't going to do 3 - it's not worth the hassle and they don't have the numbers of duty.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Trafalgar also has Biden ahead in Pennsylvania, clearly a big lead in Philadelphia and its suburbs and the fact he was born and raised in the state is putting Biden in front there
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
1. You can't meet people you don't live with even outdoors 2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym. 3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law 3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs 4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
The police aren't going to do 3 - it's not worth the hassle and they don't have the numbers of duty.
I know that. You know that. The POLICE know that. But its been announced anyway. The government didn't actually tell Northumbria Police before announcing what Northumbria Police would be doing.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
Apparently you can have music but only less than 85 decibels.
These laws are nonsensical. It’s scandalous they’ve been rushed through by decree. They are both illiberal and ineffective.
The government is a shambles. It has no clue what it is trying to achieve.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
It is shocking that so many new laws and new criminal offences are being created without any parliamentary vote or scrutiny whatsoever. No wonder a lot of MPs are pissed off.
At some point during the Brexit process government came up with the idea of getting some broad powers from a widely drawn general act, and then relaying on regulations being simply pronounced to implement all of the detail without having to trouble getting anyone’s agreement to it. It was a retrograde step and one that doesn’t seem to be going away.
And basically it can be applied to any situation where a Government determines there may be a need to act quickly. Which can be made to cover almost every area of potential Primary legislation if you’re imaginative enough. Remember sometimes Parliament is not available to vote on things for months at a time. Which means such a seemingly innocent clause (“only to be used in extremis”) can be appended to every future bill before Parliament “just in case”.
You can certainly bet that at the end of this, even once the Coronavirus Act is long gone, there will be a smaller Act on the statute books to cover such scenarios in the future. In fact - the use of various clauses in existing Health Protection legislation during the current situation proves that it already is.
PMs in my memory have stood down either immediately upon resigning or at the subsequent election.
Bozo throwing her out would a big, and risky, moment, for him. Not throwing her out also raises problems. The pressure is on for him to climb down. Again.
May is copying the longest sulk in history.
Bit early to say that. This is a specific Bill which is clearly completely out of order, non-conservative and obviously dreamt up by Britain's leading eye test specialist in order to cause trouble and generally make Britain look perfidious.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
1. You can't meet people you don't live with even outdoors 2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym. 3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law 3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs 4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
The police aren't going to do 3 - it's not worth the hassle and they don't have the numbers of duty.
Neither, in all this, have people remembered (intentional from the govt?) that the police have no powers of entry into your home. So you can have 20 people in there, illegal as it is, and you are relying on the police applying for a warrant to enter and search the premises.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
I knew relations between Webber and her CLP were troubled, but this quote from the Guardian is pretty damning:
"Labour party criticised Webbe for failing to inform the CLP about the charges in advance. “We are shocked at these developments. Since her election Claudia Webbe has chosen not to have had any dealings with the CLP. Against our express wishes she has remained an Islington councillor.
“We will support any action taken by the national party and the chief whip. The officers of the party will convene an emergency meeting to discuss these matters,” the spokesperson said"
It is a little strange she is still a cllr (for an area different to her parliamentary constituency, people have been cllrs and mps before) though I suppose if she didn't get around to it before elections stopped she might not want to as her area would remain unrepresented as no by elections?
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
RULE OF SIX: you can be fined up to £6,400 for meeting as a group of more than six people, indoors or outdoors
EXCEPTIONS to the Rule of Six:
- family you live with - friends you live with - people you have formed a support bubble with - work - voluntary or charitable service - childcare - education and training - supervised activities for children including playgroups and youth groups - supporting vulnerable people - providing emergency assistance - to avoid injury or illness - legal obligations including attending court and jury service - where a child doesn’t live with both parents - elite sports and sports training - weddings and civil partnerships - funerals (but not wakes, unless they are also religious ceremonies) - exercise classes - outdoor sports - supervised indoor sports for under 18s only - indoor team sports for disabled people only - formal support groups and support network meetings - protests provided other social distancing guidelines are observed - where one person is covered by an exemption they are excluded from the count of six, so for example seven people can meet if one is working at the time (e.g. a plumber visiting a house of six people) - venues meeting other guidelines can host more than six people provided there aren’t any sub groups larger than six (e.g. religious ceremonies, pubs, restaurants)
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
it almost worked, even Boris and Jrm voted for it in the end.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
PMs in my memory have stood down either immediately upon resigning or at the subsequent election.
Edward Heath famously sulked on the back benches for years.
Good. We should see it more often. Being an mp is not merely a stepping stone to pm and once no longer the latter you might feel done, but you might still enjoy and be good at the former.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
it almost worked, even Boris and Jrm voted for it in the end.
Thank goodness it didn't. Boris was wrong to back it though I understand why he did. I don't always agree with Boris and that was one time I disagree.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
ABC has Biden ahead in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Minnesota on that link but Trump ahead in Florida and Arizona
There is no way Biden is going to allow himself to lose Penn.
Agreed, if Trump does hold Florida and Arizona Biden's best path to a win is Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and the Hillary states
Pretty difficult for either to win without PA but Trump has had good recent polls from Monmouth and Emerson so maybe some of the more marginal States can yet turn to him.
Biden Team will certainly be more concerned about Monmouth and Emerson than Rasmussen and Trafalgar.
Comments
Difficulties arise when an issue might be attached generically, without indicating which of the three is relevant, and therefore how much the government is to blame, as in some cases it will be a lot, others a bit, and at least some perhaps not at all.
That might seem like splitting hairs, but I'd argue otherwise - making it a binary choice of defend or attack the handling is just silly, as not every aspect has been the same and even if every aspect was a failure, it wont have all be the same level of failure or have same requirement to fix.
The strange thing has been when problems have been clearly coming yet the same problem responses occur.
On lockdown as a whole, it was surely absolutely clear from the very start that you can only police these things with public consent and compliance, which would not last forever even though, at present, the majority are supportive of the very harshest measures. Additionally, surely clear that life does go on during even more virulent catastophes, therefore the effect of mitigation on that life would become increasingly relevant over time.
Again, I don't know why that seems to have surprised the government, and they've resisted trying to win over MPs who would likely back them on it when asked, as I feel like at the start of all this their advisers were talking about the impact of fatigue.
Adults being abused is terrible, of course, but they are much more likely to be able to escape. But children are less likely to be able to walk out.
People will quarantine if they think they will be looked after. Rather than 2 generations of experience of becoming sick or disabled and being thrown into penury for example.
It doesn't happen by accident.
I think little consideration has been given to issues like this. Governments including our own have simply looked for the equilibrium between direct Covid deaths and economic prudence, and there probably isn't one.
Feels like Toryism to me.
My advice, do your best to live the life you want to lead, within the rules, and take whatever precautions you think are sensible. Leave the rest down to fate.
Nothing I am hearing in the UK media or have read here the past week or so makes me look forward to returning home. As far as I can ascertain from what I have picked up in Italy and Germany, people here are mostly hoping rather than despairing.
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1310791779504058368
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
Somewhere in Wales there is a latter day anti-Hogarth drawing up cartoons of SeanT being respectable, with 1.4 kids and a labradoodle...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/technology/2020-election-security-threats.html
A dry run for the night of November 3rd?
Someone needs to tell Amercians to use pencils, paper and a room full of volunteers, just like most of the rest of the world.
And I wish all the best to anyone with whatever they have - especially undergoing nasty treatment.
I have just had as close to an impending all clear for my Hairy Cell Leukemia as I am likely to get - very good response to monoclonal antibody treatment two months on, and a treatment plan of 3 month then 6 month checks to be followed by annual monitoring.
There is no evidence that Biden is taking drugs.
Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, has responded to such claims in unusually blunt terms by stating: “Vice-President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn’t make a plan to stop Covid-19.”
Chances of trading with EU on a tariff/quota free basis on 01 Jan now look much better than 50% no? Not to say that this government won’t cock up the implementation of leaving the customs union, a known challenge since soon after the vote. But good news on the tariff element perhaps around the corner.
Much like with the vaccine... good news around the corner too. Not to say this government won’t cock up the implementation of its mass rollout (vials, storage capacity etc...), a known challenge since we started work on a vaccine...
"Labour party criticised Webbe for failing to inform the CLP about the charges in advance. “We are shocked at these developments. Since her election Claudia Webbe has chosen not to have had any dealings with the CLP. Against our express wishes she has remained an Islington councillor.
“We will support any action taken by the national party and the chief whip. The officers of the party will convene an emergency meeting to discuss these matters,” the spokesperson said"
You and yours much be very relieved; it won't really kick in for a bit though, not until you put a note in your diary for 6 months hence.... check due!
I expect the debate tonight to be as dull as these things often prove to be with a no risk, don't upset the apple cart performance by Biden containing a couple of well rehearsed set pieces for the media but otherwise no hostages to fortune. He doesn't need to win the debate to win.
What it depends on volunteers for - intensely supervised by those well-paid public servants - is scrutinising those well-paid public servants minutely. An infinitely more efficient and effective method of ensuring an honest count than tying up the nation's courts for months afterwards.
A Romanian mayor who died from coronavirus complications has secured a landslide victory in local elections.
Ion Aliman won a third term as mayor of Deveselu, a village in southern Romania, securing 64% of the vote.
Officials said his name was already printed on ballots and could not be removed after he died in the capital, Bucharest, on 15 September.
P.S. My experience of German tourists is they want to breakfast after 9am, but that is because that is when I go to breakfast when on holiday.
Particularly ones that you woke up late at night by drunkenly tripping over their guy ropes...
You are right, it’s a grey and drizzly morning here in the Black Forest, too. South of the Alps, summer is drawing to a close; North of the mountains, it is already autumn.
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
At some point during the Brexit process government came up with the idea of getting some broad powers from a widely drawn general act, and then relaying on regulations being simply pronounced to implement all of the detail without having to trouble getting anyone’s agreement to it. It was a retrograde step and one that doesn’t seem to be going away.
2. But you can go to a packed pub full of people who you don't live with. Or the gym.
3. Make sure the guy sweating next you on the nearest treadmill is a stranger. If they are your mate you're breaking the law
3. And the police (who weren't informed before the announcement) will be in the pubs checking that the strangers you are mingling with aren't known to you. If they are, big fine, if they aren't no probs
4. Singing is BAD. Spreads the pox. So no singing. Sweating in a gym doesn't spread the pox hence why thats still OK. Mingling is BANNED. Unless its a live band. Then you can mingle. But not with people you know. And don't sing. Thats BAD. Unless you are in the band. Then thats OK
I know that the most loyal like to come on here and defend the latest nonsense from this government. But seriously - this is madness
PMs in my memory have stood down either immediately upon resigning or at the subsequent election.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310751499623043072?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310753499580379139?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310754585426960390?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310763180063444992?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310820132386746368?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310747008420937729?s=20
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
These laws are nonsensical. It’s scandalous they’ve been rushed through by decree. They are both illiberal and ineffective.
The government is a shambles. It has no clue what it is trying to achieve.
Meanwhile I need to find some nice blue paint.
You can certainly bet that at the end of this, even once the Coronavirus Act is long gone, there will be a smaller Act on the statute books to cover such scenarios in the future. In fact - the use of various clauses in existing Health Protection legislation during the current situation proves that it already is.
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
EXCEPTIONS to the Rule of Six:
- family you live with
- friends you live with
- people you have formed a support bubble with
- work
- voluntary or charitable service
- childcare
- education and training
- supervised activities for children including playgroups and youth groups
- supporting vulnerable people
- providing emergency assistance
- to avoid injury or illness
- legal obligations including attending court and jury service
- where a child doesn’t live with both parents
- elite sports and sports training
- weddings and civil partnerships
- funerals (but not wakes, unless they are also religious ceremonies)
- exercise classes
- outdoor sports
- supervised indoor sports for under 18s only
- indoor team sports for disabled people only
- formal support groups and support network meetings
- protests provided other social distancing guidelines are observed
- where one person is covered by an exemption they are excluded from the count of six, so for example seven people can meet if one is working at the time (e.g. a plumber visiting a house of six people)
- venues meeting other guidelines can host more than six people provided there aren’t any sub groups larger than six (e.g. religious ceremonies, pubs, restaurants)
Even Cameron failed to get a majority in 2010 and only got a majority of 12 in 2015
It's not done yet.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54330880
Biden Team will certainly be more concerned about Monmouth and Emerson than Rasmussen and Trafalgar.