It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Very well said - and I know you're not exactly a Tory so kudos to you for being a grown up about it.
Except your position is total bollocks because you champion people "living life normally and judging their own risks" and then you also champion using the full force of the law to stop people socialising.
Your position is totally illogical, dishonest, and hypocritical.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Understanding it doesn't really help any, though, does it? Everyone's understanding will be different.
I think my just finished European trip, finalised during the brief window when the government was actually encouraging people to book foreign holidays, was 'fearless with common sense'. Fearless because I went ahead despite the risks and had a very good time (the absence of mass tourism actually makes travelling right now much more enjoyable), and did my tiny bit for keeping economic activity and social contact between nations ticking over. But with plenty of common sense taking every sensible precaution to stay safe. Yet there are those here who continue to argue that any foreign travel is reckless and should be banned.
There will be those who think that going to big indoor gatherings is fearless common sense - after all, it's a statistical fact that your chance of coming into contact with an infectious carrier are still pretty tiny in most of the country. Yet I wouldn't do so.
Hence no behaviour is going to change as a result of this latest government communications misstep.
'After the debate, 19% of registered voters who watched said they switched their vote, with 11% backing Trump and 8% shifting to Biden. Nearly everyone who said they switched to Trump had voted for him in 2016. Half those who switched to Biden had voted for Clinton in 2016. The others included Trump voters, nonvoters and third-party voters.'
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Very well said - and I know you're not exactly a Tory so kudos to you for being a grown up about it.
Except your position is total bollocks because you champion people "living life normally and judging their own risks" and then you also champion using the full force of the law to stop people socialising.
Your position is totally illogical, dishonest, and hypocritical.
The message is sensible. Whether it remotely reflects the reality of confused and contradictory Government policy is another matter.
Well of course. I agree with that. But Government fanbois will use the ridiculous "just think for yourself" line to justify incompetent government policy when it suits. Always when it suits.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
I did my weekly shop at the Wembley superstore. Reduced prices on all sorts of items, but only if you use a club card seems an act of desperation. Personally, I’d rather my shopping habits were not detailed on their database, so that they could tempt me weekly with carefully-selected offers. I won’t be going there again.
Yes, I hear you. Clubcard is the one advantage Tesco believe they have over someone like Asda or even Sainsbury's. And so we have the madness of the new Tesco pricing policy - you can have promotional offers only if you have a clubcard. They're some kind of wierd amalgam of a traditional supermarket, a german "discounter" like Aldi, and a membership warehouse like Costco.
I don't expect it to last long, as frankly differential pricing on products depending on your status is a desperate attempt to bag shopper loyalty and make Clubcard have any purpose. Once upon a time Clubcard was a reason to suffer the trip to Tesco. Then they devalued it to being almost worthless.
With online orders, it is possible to "mine" for the cheap products. This makes the traditional pricing policy of cheap products to get them in the doors, and make it up on the other stuff people will buy once in the store, a failure.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Very well said - and I know you're not exactly a Tory so kudos to you for being a grown up about it.
Except your position is total bollocks because you champion people "living life normally and judging their own risks" and then you also champion using the full force of the law to stop people socialising.
Your position is totally illogical, dishonest, and hypocritical.
The message is sensible. Whether it remotely reflects the reality of confused and contradictory Government policy is another matter.
It is basically telling people to use their own sense and judgement, in a legal and regulatory environment where the government is trying to direct precisely how many people we can meet in every different situation imaginable.
That fundamental disconnect is why it doesn't work. The "rules" don't allow for judgement.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
'After the debate, 19% of registered voters who watched said they switched their vote, with 11% backing Trump and 8% shifting to Biden. Nearly everyone who said they switched to Trump had voted for him in 2016. Half those who switched to Biden had voted for Clinton in 2016. The others included Trump voters, nonvoters and third-party voters.'
For a while now I've been wondering just how much "the virus spreads in home gatherings" is just pure selection bias.
It's one of the few things people were able to do this year and by definition if you're going round spreading the virus in the cinema or the supermarket or the shopping mall or whatever you don't know you've spread it to them but when you get it and you were asked who you were in contact with "mm yes I was sat a couple of feet away from my mum/dad/uncle/niece/gran etc." is not an entirely surprising thing to remember.
It doesn't mean house gatherings shouldn't necessarily be limited but I would wonder if the narrative really makes sense to essentially put so much of the "blame" on this aspect.
My take on this is that the "fearless" element is a reference to the economy.
John Maynard Keynes coined the phrase "animal spirits" to describe how people arrive at financial decisions, including buying and selling in times of economic stress or uncertainty. Rishi Sunak has already specifically refered to animal spirits at the start of the eat out to get covid (sorry help out) campaign on the Andrew Marr program.
Boris's message is an attempt to encourage everyone to do something, rather than just sit on a sofa and play computer games/flirt on social media, to keep the economy moving.
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
I wonder if it would work economically if one delivery operation delivered orders from all the supermarkets? You order from your supermarket of choice, but it always comes with Ocado (or whoever), with the latter performing a role similar to the postal service. Once the density of delivery reaches a certain level, economies of scale might make it viable.
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
Online makes a loss for everyone, even with a payment for delivery - average loss is around £5 per delivery. The problem is that the traditional supermarkets were already woefully bloated and inefficient in their trading models - too many product lines, not enough sales. And now there are additional massive costs on top of that as they pay members of staff to walk round a store picking your shopping.
It absolutely isn't sustainable, but the idea is that they build market share to make it profitable in the future - much in the way that Amazon Prime isn't profitable.
Wouldn't a delivery charge with the alternative of an annual subscription service and free delivery be a sustainable model? Once you'd paid the annual fee it would encourage sticking with the same supermarket. And they could use the "membership" model to throw in tons of other benefits (free magazine, special offers, etc.) beefing up their existing loyalty cards?
It would be profitable if the annual subscription paid covered the cost of the deliveries made. And punters won't / can't cover the actual delivery cost. So the supermarkets have all been swallowing the increasing losses because the alternative is a loss in market share which might upset the stock market which might imperil the personal wealth of the board. "Technology" will find a way to fix the profit issue, until then look how successful we are being at gaining customers!
There is too much retail space. Way too much. And not just in supermarkets, in general. The pox is having a deleterious effect on high streets but this was frankly inevitable.
Occado is making a profit - before investment in expansion.. IIRC
The profit would be swallowed by having physical outlets - which rather suggest where this goes. Fully online wins again vs bricks and mortar.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
'After the debate, 19% of registered voters who watched said they switched their vote, with 11% backing Trump and 8% shifting to Biden. Nearly everyone who said they switched to Trump had voted for him in 2016. Half those who switched to Biden had voted for Clinton in 2016. The others included Trump voters, nonvoters and third-party voters.'
Biden doesn't need to convince a single Trump voter in 2016 to switch to win. He merely needs to GOTV.
No but he does need to win enough third party and non voters in 2016 to increase his popular vote lead to the 4 or 5%+ he needs to make victory almost certain as well as GOTV, a 3% popular vote lead would see a swing to him in the EC but may not be enough for him to win it
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
Do you take literally zero account of what the law says? And if so is that based on disagreeing with the law or is it the lack of enforcement?
There are far too many laws and many of them are silly and not enforced, so I certainly dont follow them all to the letter but what the government makes law does impact my behaviour.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
Sanisbury charges, with variable amounts from £1 to £5 depending on time or day and demand, and encouragement (a little green van logo) to ask for delivery where a delivery is already being made close to you at that time. It seems a very intelligent solution, and if the minimum charge was £5 it would probably still make sense of people working at home even if the virus didn't exist - it's less than an hour's minimum wage, and for most of us going to a supermarket and shopping ourselves takes an hour (and costs petrol or bus fares).
When I didn't work at home it was a very different matter, so the assessment for supermarkets has to be whether much of their customer base will carry on wfh.
It should be noted that the previous 2 GOP nominees before Trump were both centrists ie McCain and Romney and both lost so if Trump lost the Republican base would probably say it was because he was no longer conservative enough and go for Pence or Cruz in the next election.
Nikki Haley is the best prospect of the GOP moderates at the moment though I agree, possibly George P Bush in a decade or two too
The 2008 election was unusual in that the GOP candidate, after eight years of controlling the White House, wasn't the incumbent VP unlike George HW Bush in 1988 (who won) and Richard Nixon in 1960 (who lost). The Democrat parallels are Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (who lost) and Al Gore in 2000 (who also lost).
The point is holding the WH for three terms, rather like winning four UK GEs, doesn't happen that often. A two-term VP has, as we see, only a 4/1 chance of getting the top job. IF Trump/Pence win in November, Pence's chances of retaining the WH for the GOP in 2024 don't look that good.
McCain was therefore always going to struggle as was Romney since, as you have often stated, the post-war period has only seen one incumbent President defeated and that was Carter in 1980.
I'm not sure that in itself strengthens the argument a centrist Republican can't win - I'm quite happy to argue a conservative Republican would have lost in 2008 and 2012.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Very well said - and I know you're not exactly a Tory so kudos to you for being a grown up about it.
Except your position is total bollocks because you champion people "living life normally and judging their own risks" and then you also champion using the full force of the law to stop people socialising.
Your position is totally illogical, dishonest, and hypocritical.
The message is sensible. Whether it remotely reflects the reality of confused and contradictory Government policy is another matter.
It is basically telling people to use their own sense and judgement, in a legal and regulatory environment where the government is trying to direct precisely how many people we can meet in every different situation imaginable.
That fundamental disconnect is why it doesn't work. The "rules" don't allow for judgement.
Judgement can work with guidance, but not laws. Laws should be primarily for public establishments, and things in the private sphere, such as having grandparents visit for lunch, just be guidelines.
Just been reading through the forecasts from other banks, interesting that everyone seems to be lining up around 94-96% of February (we're around that as well) but now we're into the organic stage of the recovery which means the next two years will be needed to get the last 4-6% back. I think our economy will take an overall 8% hit due to this from lost growth and the delta between the pre-virus economy and where we end up in two years, but it's a finger in the air guess.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I agree with DavidL that the situation is horribly difficult and that it's reasonable to cut any government some slack in trying to find a way through. There are however some consistent errors in the Government's handling of the crisis:
1. Failure to message clearly what the restrictions actually mean. Johnson in particular needs to recognise that he's not good at detail and either put the work in to become good or give the detailed comms job to Gove or another detail colleague. Having an amiable waffler giving you details in a crisis is just a bad idea, and it's not partisan to say so. 2. Relatedly, giving priority to reassuring PR instead of setting out the known facts and the unknown factors. 3. Token gestures that don't actually achieve anything or may even be harmful - the 10pm limit, and possibly Eat Out to Help Out. 4. Failure to offer vulnerable sectors either medium-term support (if they are considered to be important for the longer term or assistance in moving out of the sector.
For example re number 4, does the Government think that (a) pubs in city centres are going to be vital in the future and need to be helped through the crisis or (b) that pubs in city centres are going to fade away? If the answer is (a) then they should be subsidised in the public interest for as long as it takes. If (b), then they should get assistance to relocate, in the same way as people who have to move in the interest of building an airport or a motorway are compensated. Instead, the pubs are getting short-term fixes and short-term hassle, with periodic shutdowns. Personally I don't use pubs much, but I do think they're being treated unfairly.
I agree with much of that. I am far from uncritical of the government's approach but I also think that the biggest hindrance has been the quality of scientific advice that they have received.
I think the problem is deciding the best policy is conditional on a huge unknown -- namely when will there be an efficient vaccine available?
If there is a vaccine available in 3 months, then the policy should be continue the furlough for 3 months & have very severe restrictions to minimise deaths.
But, if the efficient vaccine comes in 3 years, then a completely different policy is needed.
I just doubt whether any useful scientific/epidemiological/economic forecasting can be done when there is a huge, largely unquantifiable unknown, and when the results depend so sensitively on that unknown.
What i don't get about the pubs/restaurants approach - both in "local lockdowns" and the "national measures" is that generally the thought seems to be it is spreading within private homes which is the problem. Any measures which reduce access to pubs/restaurants (operating responsibly) will lead to people organising more events in homes. It's just common sense. And this will happen whether there a rules/laws about what you can do in the home or not. Because breaches of the laws in homes, as people have pointed out are basically undetectable and unenforceable. Police need a warrant to enter people's homes, and they're not going to bother.
So measures restricting access to pubs and restaurants work badly in three ways. 1) They send a message that they aren't safe (why are pubs safe at 9.30 but not at 10.30pm?) - encouraging people into what they think are "safe" home environments where their only contact is with friends and family. People don't see friends and family as a risk. Only other people outside their social group. 2) They force people towards "home" socialising because of the reduced access (ie. a dinner party can go on longer than 10pm) 3) They wreck pub/restaurant trade unnecessarily
I think the idea is to reduce the length of time people are mixing together indoors. Although they are then all milling about together outdoors, outdoors is better, and actually it's not everyone, and most people won't go home to a house party.
t’s a common refrain from the SNP that Westminster continually disrespects devolution and democracy, but it is here in Holyrood, where the First Minister, her party, and her government are seen to be denigrating the work of a vital committee attempting to get to the very heart of what can go wrong within government, with power. And with truth.
There were many who started this process as highly skeptical of a rumoured conspiracy against Salmond, but as always in these matters, it is the perception of a cover-up that is now doing the damage, and there is now undoubtedly a growing seed of doubt.
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
t’s a common refrain from the SNP that Westminster continually disrespects devolution and democracy, but it is here in Holyrood, where the First Minister, her party, and her government are seen to be denigrating the work of a vital committee attempting to get to the very heart of what can go wrong within government, with power. And with truth.
There were many who started this process as highly skeptical of a rumoured conspiracy against Salmond, but as always in these matters, it is the perception of a cover-up that is now doing the damage, and there is now undoubtedly a growing seed of doubt.
In the words of the old axiom, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
More that there comes a point when parties start to think they are The State. And what is good for the people running the party is good for the party.... Once you have that chain rolling.....
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
"Tyneside Cinema" is an independent "sofa cinema" in Newcastle City Centre that I highly recommend to anyone who visits in future, assuming they haven't gone bust by then. They are a charity and also run arty-farty events and a cafe/bar.
Just been reading through the forecasts from other banks, interesting that everyone seems to be lining up around 94-96% of February (we're around that as well) but now we're into the organic stage of the recovery which means the next two years will be needed to get the last 4-6% back. I think our economy will take an overall 8% hit due to this from lost growth and the delta between the pre-virus economy and where we end up in two years, but it's a finger in the air guess.
I'm not far from that - it's not just a question of where we were from February but where we would have been had Covid not intervened.
I think it's a shade bullish given the uncertainty of the coming winter - we simply don't know how the virus will develop during the colder months in the northern hemisphere and whether we'll see a renewed burst of cases as more social life is forced indoors.
For a while now I've been wondering just how much "the virus spreads in home gatherings" is just pure selection bias.
It's one of the few things people were able to do this year and by definition if you're going round spreading the virus in the cinema or the supermarket or the shopping mall or whatever you don't know you've spread it to them but when you get it and you were asked who you were in contact with "mm yes I was sat a couple of feet away from my mum/dad/uncle/niece/gran etc." is not an entirely surprising thing to remember.
It doesn't mean house gatherings shouldn't necessarily be limited but I would wonder if the narrative really makes sense to essentially put so much of the "blame" on this aspect.
Yes, I think there is a lot in what you say. If the only socialising is within the home, then that is where transmission will take place.
Morning all. Interesting header. Food for thought for sure. My view is Trump can only win as the incumbent if he stops being Trump and this has always been true. He was heading for defeat until Covid hit America and gave him a shot at salvation and a second term. The requirement was that in a national crisis he appeared empathetic, serious, competent. Not to actually be those things – obviously not possible – but to look the part. Look like a president.
I was scared he might be able to do it. Donald Trump is after all a showman. But either because he couldn’t or he wouldn’t he passed up the opportunity and instead dished up more of the same and dug himself into a hole whereby defeat at the polls became a near certainty. Excellent news. Still Toast. More Toast than ever in fact. But wait! …
Here comes that virus again to grant him a second (and final) chance to unplug the toaster before he pops up all brown and crisp. He has come down with it himself and assuming it remains a mild case he can milk the situation for drama and sympathy and (very importantly) use it to alter his tone and positioning for the election. He can do what I'm saying is the sine qua non for him to have a chance on 3/11 - stop being Trump. I’m hoping he again fails to do this, or if he does that it’s a case of ‘Keegan Brooking’.
'Keegan Brooking' ??
Sorry - "too little too late".
The famous 1982 WC double substitution with England in a hole and just a few minutes left.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
It should be noted that the previous 2 GOP nominees before Trump were both centrists ie McCain and Romney and both lost so if Trump lost the Republican base would probably say it was because he was no longer conservative enough and go for Pence or Cruz in the next election.
Nikki Haley is the best prospect of the GOP moderates at the moment though I agree, possibly George P Bush in a decade or two too
The 2008 election was unusual in that the GOP candidate, after eight years of controlling the White House, wasn't the incumbent VP unlike George HW Bush in 1988 (who won) and Richard Nixon in 1960 (who lost). The Democrat parallels are Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (who lost) and Al Gore in 2000 (who also lost).
The point is holding the WH for three terms, rather like winning four UK GEs, doesn't happen that often. A two-term VP has, as we see, only a 4/1 chance of getting the top job. IF Trump/Pence win in November, Pence's chances of retaining the WH for the GOP in 2024 don't look that good.
McCain was therefore always going to struggle as was Romney since, as you have often stated, the post-war period has only seen one incumbent President defeated and that was Carter in 1980.
I'm not sure that in itself strengthens the argument a centrist Republican can't win - I'm quite happy to argue a conservative Republican would have lost in 2008 and 2012.
Maybe but 2024 will be 60 years after the GOP nominated Goldwater and 44 years after they first nominated Reagan, if they lose in November they might feel next time they should nominate a staunch rightwinger again to run against an incumbent President
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
I agree with DavidL that the situation is horribly difficult and that it's reasonable to cut any government some slack in trying to find a way through. There are however some consistent errors in the Government's handling of the crisis:
1. Failure to message clearly what the restrictions actually mean. Johnson in particular needs to recognise that he's not good at detail and either put the work in to become good or give the detailed comms job to Gove or another detail colleague. Having an amiable waffler giving you details in a crisis is just a bad idea, and it's not partisan to say so. 2. Relatedly, giving priority to reassuring PR instead of setting out the known facts and the unknown factors. 3. Token gestures that don't actually achieve anything or may even be harmful - the 10pm limit, and possibly Eat Out to Help Out. 4. Failure to offer vulnerable sectors either medium-term support (if they are considered to be important for the longer term or assistance in moving out of the sector.
For example re number 4, does the Government think that (a) pubs in city centres are going to be vital in the future and need to be helped through the crisis or (b) that pubs in city centres are going to fade away? If the answer is (a) then they should be subsidised in the public interest for as long as it takes. If (b), then they should get assistance to relocate, in the same way as people who have to move in the interest of building an airport or a motorway are compensated. Instead, the pubs are getting short-term fixes and short-term hassle, with periodic shutdowns. Personally I don't use pubs much, but I do think they're being treated unfairly.
I agree with much of that. I am far from uncritical of the government's approach but I also think that the biggest hindrance has been the quality of scientific advice that they have received.
I think the problem is deciding the best policy is conditional on a huge unknown -- namely when will there be an efficient vaccine available?
If there is a vaccine available in 3 months, then the policy should be continue the furlough for 3 months & have very severe restrictions to minimise deaths.
But, if the efficient vaccine comes in 3 years, then a completely different policy is needed.
I just doubt whether any useful scientific/epidemiological/economic forecasting can be done when there is a huge, largely unquantifiable unknown, and when the results depend so sensitively on that unknown.
I agree that this is difficult. But the emphasis by Vallance in particular that a test that was not sufficiently accurate was "worse than useless" was just plain wrong and failed to understand what the point of the testing was, not an end in itself but a means towards identifying cases quickly and slowing the spread. The abandonment of phase 1 in the early days was another and related mistake, its taken us many months to try to return to that. The recent charts apparently projecting exponential growth in the presence of both a clear linear trend and the evidence of at least 2 other western European countries did nothing for credibility (I know, I know, it wasn't a forecast but really).
There are major uncertainties, we don't need to add to them.
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
Sanisbury charges, with variable amounts from £1 to £5 depending on time or day and demand, and encouragement (a little green van logo) to ask for delivery where a delivery is already being made close to you at that time. It seems a very intelligent solution, and if the minimum charge was £5 it would probably still make sense of people working at home even if the virus didn't exist - it's less than an hour's minimum wage, and for most of us going to a supermarket and shopping ourselves takes an hour (and costs petrol or bus fares).
When I didn't work at home it was a very different matter, so the assessment for supermarkets has to be whether much of their customer base will carry on wfh.
The problem is that they are still carrying the bricks and mortar costs for everyone coming to shop, and delivering to home.
Occaso et el will win that game in the end - as with Amazon, the advantage is that they only need to own/rent the logistics chain, not stores.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
Given the profession you're heading into avoiding having a criminal record is very advisable.
I am sure that Dura Ace will provide examples of people acting fearlessly but with common sense. Must be frequent in military situations!
Are you suggesting you're incapable of using common sense if you're not acting terrified?
That's a bit convoluted ....... too many negatives,............. but I think the answer is one is unlikely to use common sense if terrified. And equally unlikely to act in a common-sense way if acting in a reckless fashion!
Well indeed. I think the idea is to use common sense, not be either fearful or reckless. What's wrong with that?
The fact that "reckless" and "fearless" are synonyms, so it comes to a contradiction.
They're not.
They are. They both mean, objectively, discounting the likely consequences of an action when deciding whether to take it or not. The difference is purely in the hurray! vs yah! boo! connotation of each word.
Well even that shows they're not synonyms. Reckless means, literally, without care. Negligent as to the risks. A soldier on the battlefield who uses all his fieldcraft and training and then advances against the enemy is being fearless. If he runs out in the open waving his arms he is being reckless. For a mundane argument - if I cross the road having chosen a position where I have a good line of sight and look both ways, I am being fearless. Of course I could still be hit by a speeding driver. If I wander into the road without looking on a blind corner I am being reckless.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
Given the profession you're heading into avoiding having a criminal record is very advisable.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Good article Robert. At the risk of getting more brickbats, I’ll give a few other pointers that might suggest the consensus is wrong re Trump and / or why the Democrats might not be doing so well:
1. Closing gap in registration numbers in swing states. I have posted this link before but it is worth checking out. I’m on a mobile so difficult to go back and forth typing in the numbers but in all 4 of the 6 swing states Trump won last time and which release voter registration trends by party (FL, PA, AZ and NC), the GOP has closed the registration gap since the last election with the Democrats. Article https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1241674
2. Hispanic voters. We had a big debate on here a day or two ago about why Black voters would go with the GOP. What is probably more of an issue for the Democrats is that there have been consistent signs in the polling that their lead over the GOP has been shrinking. That’s important in states like FL and AZ but also in NV where the tone of language is suggesting the race is tightening (and possibly even CO at a push).
One big mistake the Democrats - and it’s a classic middle class white liberal one - is to lump Black people and Hispanics in as a one big “People of Colour” family so that Hispanics should be naturally on the side of BLM. That is far from the case and the vibes coming out of Hispanic voters is they feel the Democrats have ignored their concerns.
3. Change in the ground game. It’s a bit linked to 1 but the GOP has been continuing to go door to door to sign up voters whilst the Dems have focused on a virtual campaign. Probably the key reason why Obama won in 2012 was the strength of the GOTV operation and that works best when you can do physical canvassing. There had been disquiet for a while amongst some Democrats over the virtual approach and there is a switch to physical door knocking (interesting NV and NH are two of the first states), the question is whether is too late;
4. Voter enthusiasm: Trump rallies pull in crowds who are prepared to queue, Biden speeches don’t. It’s not a great way to measure but it can actually be a decent way of seeing how fired up people are.
If Biden does lose, the biggest mistake the Democrats can make is assuming it’s all down to “unfair” factors such as Trump getting a sympathy vote etc etc. There have been enough warning signals elsewhere.
Point 1 is pretty terrifying, the rest are just theories.
I'm going to look closely at the odds on Biden when market reopens. If i can cash out at ~1.4, reckon that might be good enough for me.
About point 1, all the article talking about how the GOP is closing the gap talk about net registrations. But net figures are unreliable as they depend on the cadence of how people drop their registration/when people fall of the electoral register. It is not even consistent by state, there is county by county differences within a state.
Yes and apparently there is evidence that younger voters prefer to be unaffiliated even though they are more likely to vote Dem.
But it is a worrying data point.
Of the early ballots returned in North Carolina the Unaffiliated voters who have voted chose to participate in the Dem Primary over the GOP primary by 90% to 10%.
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
It'd be interesting to know pre-covid how much cinema multiplex business was derived from Saturday and Sunday trading versus the rest of the week. It has sort of felt for a while like cinemas only really needed to be open on the weekends (including Friday nights I guess).
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
There is only so long that people will tolerate ordering items that do not turn up.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
. The recent charts apparently projecting exponential growth in the presence of both a clear linear trend and the evidence of at least 2 other western European countries did nothing for credibility (I know, I know, it wasn't a forecast but really).
But, for small x, an exponential is linear.
$\exp(nx) \approx 1 + nx$
The problem is that you only find out whether you are on an exponential curve when it is too late.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
Very well said - and I know you're not exactly a Tory so kudos to you for being a grown up about it.
Except your position is total bollocks because you champion people "living life normally and judging their own risks" and then you also champion using the full force of the law to stop people socialising.
Your position is totally illogical, dishonest, and hypocritical.
The message is sensible. Whether it remotely reflects the reality of confused and contradictory Government policy is another matter.
It is basically telling people to use their own sense and judgement, in a legal and regulatory environment where the government is trying to direct precisely how many people we can meet in every different situation imaginable.
That fundamental disconnect is why it doesn't work. The "rules" don't allow for judgement.
Judgement can work with guidance, but not laws. Laws should be primarily for public establishments, and things in the private sphere, such as having grandparents visit for lunch, just be guidelines.
That’s basically it. Bozo, from the beginning, has wanted to run a Swedish style “use your common sense” approach but has yielded to others into trying to regulate every detail of our behaviour.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
Have to disagree, sorry.
On what grounds do you disagree? You judge people who can't or wont be blasé about the potential for £1,000 fines and potentially a criminal record?
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
It's only a matter of time until the studios start renting out new movies for £20, for home viewing.
The old-fashioned multiplex has been killed off by the studios themselves, insisting on all of the revenue from new releases and forcing the cinemas to rely on concession revenue.
That, and a few years of mostly forgettable sequels rather than innovative movies, alongside customers who increasingly find it impossible to put down their phones for a couple of hours.
There will still be some markets left for cinemas, namely the annual massive blockbuster movie, the 'VIP' experience with good food and alcohol served, and the teenagers who don't care what's on as they're more interested in each other than the screen.
Those markets are not going to sustain a couple of dozen-screen multiplexes in every town in the country going forward, there will necessarily be closures and refurbishments required.
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
It'd be interesting to know pre-covid how much cinema multiplex business was derived from Saturday and Sunday trading versus the rest of the week. It has sort of felt for a while like cinemas only really needed to be open on the weekends (including Friday nights I guess).
During the weekends they seemed pretty dead, where I was. And this was in a brand new, top of line setup. Noticeable was the "members" area - fancy bar etc, which was completely shuttered, and never used.
. The recent charts apparently projecting exponential growth in the presence of both a clear linear trend and the evidence of at least 2 other western European countries did nothing for credibility (I know, I know, it wasn't a forecast but really).
But, for small x, an exponential is linear.
$\exp(nx) \approx 1 + nx$
The problem is that you only find out whether you are on an exponential curve when it is too late.
Sure, but we had a period of growth over late July, all of August and most of September at that time. And it was linear. We also had Spain and France who had started growth a month or so before us and were on the same track.
And its not like linear growth is not alarming and a need for action, it is and it was. They basically handed out a stick to sceptics (who are mainly ridiculous) and said, "here, beat us with this within 2 weeks and undermine our message".
Those bottom 15 positives suggest that the Superspreading event was from the Rose Garden reception for the SCOTUS nominee, with many of the Trump team arriving infected in Cleveland.
The honour system for the Trumpists in place of testing for the debate seems very reckless now.
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
Sanisbury charges, with variable amounts from £1 to £5 depending on time or day and demand, and encouragement (a little green van logo) to ask for delivery where a delivery is already being made close to you at that time. It seems a very intelligent solution, and if the minimum charge was £5 it would probably still make sense of people working at home even if the virus didn't exist - it's less than an hour's minimum wage, and for most of us going to a supermarket and shopping ourselves takes an hour (and costs petrol or bus fares).
When I didn't work at home it was a very different matter, so the assessment for supermarkets has to be whether much of their customer base will carry on wfh.
The problem for Sainsbury's being that a delivery costs them at least a tenner - more in higher cost areas / lower value orders. So on you're example they're losing £5 - £9 per drop.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
"If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other"
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
But that's a separate to discussion. Most people are wary to break the law and risk significant fines. That's entirely rational and not a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government".
It's never been illegal to go and see your parents at their home/in their back garden has it? Imagine being the kind of person who would refuse to see them because a politician you disagree with told you not to!
It's currently illegal for 1/4 of the population of England to see their parents in their home and/or back garden.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
I would never take any notice of such a law so I don't really care!
That's fine. But like I said, it's entirely rational for people to be wary about breaking laws. It isn't a judgement on whether the British people "want to be told what to do by their government". They want to know what they are allowed to do without risking significant fines.
Have to disagree, sorry.
On what grounds do you disagree? You judge people who can't or wont be blasé about the potential for £1,000 fines and potentially a criminal record?
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
Sanisbury charges, with variable amounts from £1 to £5 depending on time or day and demand, and encouragement (a little green van logo) to ask for delivery where a delivery is already being made close to you at that time. It seems a very intelligent solution, and if the minimum charge was £5 it would probably still make sense of people working at home even if the virus didn't exist - it's less than an hour's minimum wage, and for most of us going to a supermarket and shopping ourselves takes an hour (and costs petrol or bus fares).
When I didn't work at home it was a very different matter, so the assessment for supermarkets has to be whether much of their customer base will carry on wfh.
The problem for Sainsbury's being that a delivery costs them at least a tenner - more in higher cost areas / lower value orders. So on you're example they're losing £5 - £9 per drop.
I've ordered a few groceries recently from Amazon and it's been brilliant, but I feel dirty doing it. I hate the whole "book a delivery slot" thing. I just want to order food products and have them delivered to me like other consumer goods. I guess I don't buy frozen or fresh products online though.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
I can't say I have any sympathy for Cineworld - plenty for their staff of course.
Their model always struck me as woefully inept. The ridiculous faux Americanism of candies and buckets of ice and cola at vastly inflated prices and under-staffed counters. They missed an opportunity for significant refreshment sales, you only have to look at how city centre independents did it to see that.
The only thing they had going for them was Unlimited Cinema for less than a fiver a week.
They then decided to limit what you could watch with petty disputes and refusing to show the best films
Limited card not so much
I believe that the top films being pulled from such deals was push back from the studios - they see the top films as a premium product etc.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
It's only a matter of time until the studios start renting out new movies for £20, for home viewing.
The old-fashioned multiplex has been killed off by the studios themselves, insisting on all of the revenue from new releases and forcing the cinemas to rely on concession revenue.
That, and a few years of mostly forgettable sequels rather than innovative movies, alongside customers who increasingly find it impossible to put down their phones for a couple of hours.
There will still be some markets left for cinemas, namely the annual massive blockbuster movie, the 'VIP' experience with good food and alcohol served, and the teenagers who don't care what's on as they're more interested in each other than the screen.
Those markets are not going to sustain a couple of dozen-screen multiplexes in every town in the country going forward, there will necessarily be closures and refurbishments required.
I think so.
I also think that there will be a market for pricey, top-line small cinemas. They are building one nearby - apparently already over-subscribed for membership (pre COVID). The plans show huge amounts of space per patron.... table service, full restaurant etc.
Its easy to nitpick various things this government have done - very very easy as so many of their actions have been laughable. The core problem appears to be wishful thinking - hope that it goes away quickly so that we can get back to the business of delivering Brexit. That it hasn't gone away is jolly bad form from this virus not doing what Dom told it to.
The reason why we have this catastrofuck with universities and the looming mass business extinction event with the end of the Furlough scheme and the go to the pub don't go to the pub contradiction is because they made no plans for how to manage the pox through the autumn as it was supposed to have gone away by now.
It is this basic lack of comprehension that is the government's problem, the increasingly absurd restrictions are merely the symptoms of this lack of comprehension. You can't cure stupid - and so many members of the cabinet were chosen specifically for their stupidity - which means we can't endure the coming mess without increasing chaos. And their lack of comprehension as to how trade works will just add to the fun as we collapse out the end of the transition period and everything just stops.
Morning all. Interesting header. Food for thought for sure. My view is Trump can only win as the incumbent if he stops being Trump and this has always been true. He was heading for defeat until Covid hit America and gave him a shot at salvation and a second term. The requirement was that in a national crisis he appeared empathetic, serious, competent. Not to actually be those things – obviously not possible – but to look the part. Look like a president.
I was scared he might be able to do it. Donald Trump is after all a showman. But either because he couldn’t or he wouldn’t he passed up the opportunity and instead dished up more of the same and dug himself into a hole whereby defeat at the polls became a near certainty. Excellent news. Still Toast. More Toast than ever in fact. But wait! …
Here comes that virus again to grant him a second (and final) chance to unplug the toaster before he pops up all brown and crisp. He has come down with it himself and assuming it remains a mild case he can milk the situation for drama and sympathy and (very importantly) use it to alter his tone and positioning for the election. He can do what I'm saying is the sine qua non for him to have a chance on 3/11 - stop being Trump. I’m hoping he again fails to do this, or if he does that it’s a case of ‘Keegan Brooking’.
'Keegan Brooking' ??
Sorry - "too little too late".
The famous 1982 WC double substitution with England in a hole and just a few minutes left.
Ah yes, I see.
You know that phenomenum where you supress really terrible memories?...
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
The 2010 and 2017 elections produced Hung Parliaments and were not won by one party. The Tories only obtained office courtesy of smaller parties which had the option of swinging the other way. Thus, the the Tories have not won 2 general elections consecutively - having achieved a small majority in 2015 which the party proceeded to lose in 2017.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
If Trump loses narrowly he will likely run again in 2024 and probably win the nomination again.
President Grover Cleveland narrowly lost his re election bid to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but came back to beat Harrison in 1892 and complete a second term so it has been done before.
Ivanka is too much of a RINO for the GOP base at the moment, if Donald does not run again they would pick Pence over her
I can't see Donald Trump trying again if he loses next month. Grover Cleveland was, with respect, a long time ago and Trump would be 78 if he sought the Presidency again in 2024 (Reagan was 77 at the end of his two terms).
The question is whether you think we are moving to a period of 1-term alternating Presidencies or whether the more "traditional" pattern of two or even three term dominance will re-assert. I see Pence as a 2020s Goldwater - fine for the conservative base but with no chance in a different America.
His defeat would allow the GOP to tack back to a more centrist position in 2028 - Nikki Haley would be 56 by then - and I think she is the first (or second perhaps) female President.
I am not sure about the Pence/Goldwater comparison. Goldwater was seen as an extremist even within his own party, and leant into it in the campaign rather than trying to shake it off.
Pence is clearly a firm, religious conservative. But he's a lot closer to what is now GOP mainstream. He's also got quite a conventional political mind, and is unlikely to revel in the extremism label, which was Goldwater's biggest error.
I don't think he'd get the nomination in 2024 anyway were Trump to lose in 2020 (but might well if he wins). If the Republican ticket loses after one term, that has to ultimately go down as a huge failure even from those who like Trump/Pence a lot. He'll have no elected position and is ultimately a rather boring, charisma-free zone who will be bypassed by newer, more interesting standard bearers. Having said that, I appreciate I've just described Walter Mondale, who did secure the Democratic nomination in 1984... I just don't see lightning striking twice, particularly given Mondale flopped so badly.
Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian, Pence most certainly is not but a conservative evangelical.
If the GOP lose in November and look likely to lose in 2024 as the Democrats were in 1984 then I would say it is odds on that Pence will be the GOP nominee as Carter's VP Mondale was in 1984.
The Democratic Carter-Mondale ticket's loss after just a term in 1980 foretold a 12 year period out of the White House, I would expect a Trump-Pence defeat also after just a term would also be quite likely to lead to a lengthy period in which the GOP are out of the White House, in which case any newer, fresher GOP candidates will not bother to run anyway and try and build their CVs at state level or in Congress instead
I suspect, if Trump loses in 2020, then the GOP will not want to choose another older white guy but will instead decide it needs to embrace the changing dynamics of America. If he wins his Senate race (although if Trump loses, the chances are he loses the race but who knows), then I would keep an eye out for John James. Daniel Cameron is another one.
If the GOP loses it will likely move further right, I doubt it will even consider moving to the centre again and picking a non white or mixed race candidate until it suffers at least a further defeat or two as it took Labour 3 defeats until leftwing leaders (4 if you count Brown) to get to Starmer
So how long will it take the Tories to learn the lessons of the current utter fiasco?
Given the Tories have just won 4 general elections in a row it would take them to be defeated first and then probably defeated 2 or 3 times more to change course signifiicantly, much as it took the defeats of 1997, 2001 and 2005 for the Tories to get to Cameron
I mean 3 of those general elections were in a 5 year period. It isn't that impressive, nor particularly comparable.
Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since the 1930s. That is indeed both impressive and comparable
Impressive and comparable to what? Pointless me asking because you're not making a serious point, you're just arrogantly trying to provoke a reaction of course.
Nah, just gently pushing back against the comical obtuseness of supporters of parties at multi-decade lows in Parliament telling the party at multi-decade highs how terribly badly they're doing...
I'm not a "Labour supporter".
I thought you've said you were a party member? Although frankly unless your party is the Tories or the SNP, most of the others are at a historic ebb in Parliament whichever way you you slice it.
I am a Labour party member. I'm also a member of PureGym but I'm not a supporter of them.
It should be noted that the previous 2 GOP nominees before Trump were both centrists ie McCain and Romney and both lost so if Trump lost the Republican base would probably say it was because he was no longer conservative enough and go for Pence or Cruz in the next election.
Nikki Haley is the best prospect of the GOP moderates at the moment though I agree, possibly George P Bush in a decade or two too
The 2008 election was unusual in that the GOP candidate, after eight years of controlling the White House, wasn't the incumbent VP unlike George HW Bush in 1988 (who won) and Richard Nixon in 1960 (who lost). The Democrat parallels are Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (who lost) and Al Gore in 2000 (who also lost).
The point is holding the WH for three terms, rather like winning four UK GEs, doesn't happen that often. A two-term VP has, as we see, only a 4/1 chance of getting the top job. IF Trump/Pence win in November, Pence's chances of retaining the WH for the GOP in 2024 don't look that good.
McCain was therefore always going to struggle as was Romney since, as you have often stated, the post-war period has only seen one incumbent President defeated and that was Carter in 1980.
I'm not sure that in itself strengthens the argument a centrist Republican can't win - I'm quite happy to argue a conservative Republican would have lost in 2008 and 2012.
Maybe but 2024 will be 60 years after the GOP nominated Goldwater and 44 years after they first nominated Reagan, if they lose in November they might feel next time they should nominate a staunch rightwinger again to run against an incumbent President
Not sure about the comparison between Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater was always a maverick outsider. Reagan had been seriously considered as VP in 1973 when Agnew was forced out (and would have been President had Ford not been picked. He was a very serious challenger to Ford for the nomination in 1976. Goldwater was essentially a middle finger to the public rather than a serious attempt to win the White House.
If Trump loses, Repulicans are going to need to think about whether to be serious in 2024. The temptation will be to go for a pale Trump imitation or another sort of ultra-conservative. But that's just a way to lose even more badly by removing the undeniable, if utterly unhinged, charisma. If they are serious about winning, they will tack to the slightly more moderate.
It's the old Blair anecdote he rolls out every five minutes about a question from a Labour member at a post-1983 constituency meeting along the lines, "The electorate rejected us pretty badly at the election. What do you think is wrong with them?" It's only by through the stages of grief that you get to the right place.
Something similar is true for the Democrats, mind. They did move through the stages of grief just in time to dodge the Sanders bullet, and nominated a candidate who is sensible to the point of being totally uninspiring to many. If he loses, what then? There will be a huge grassroots temptation to say "f*** 'em" and nominate AOC or whoever, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
. The recent charts apparently projecting exponential growth in the presence of both a clear linear trend and the evidence of at least 2 other western European countries did nothing for credibility (I know, I know, it wasn't a forecast but really).
But, for small x, an exponential is linear.
$\exp(nx) \approx 1 + nx$
The problem is that you only find out whether you are on an exponential curve when it is too late.
Sure, but we had a period of growth over late July, all of August and most of September at that time. And it was linear. We also had Spain and France who had started growth a month or so before us and were on the same track.
And its not like linear growth is not alarming and a need for action, it is and it was. They basically handed out a stick to sceptics (who are mainly ridiculous) and said, "here, beat us with this within 2 weeks and undermine our message".
The trouble with exponentials is that, by the time you notice that they are exponentials, it’s too late.
If you tried to model the data with errors over September, you may well conclude that an exponential is as good as or is a better fit than a straight line.
(Now maybe you should also include the August data, as you suggest, but it is quite arguable that you should not, that the circumstances of the underlying pandemic were changing).
The news that Cineworld are to mothball their entire business is really bad. OK yes, they may be able to restart operations at some point next year. But I assume they will fire everyone barring a few in head office and maintenance. Their comment that their business is no longer viable can be said for cinema as a whole - will big studios invest in big productions if they aren't likely to get the return they are expecting?
The consequences of zero COVID policies. This was inevitable and will be for a lot of other businesses because older people are once again proving themselves as the most selfish generation.
No, cinemas are open. The problem is that no one is going, partly from covid fears and partly that there is nothing to see.
It is not government policy that is the problem, it is the pandemic.
In our local town there is a small theatre which is on the comedy and music circuit, particularly those who try out their acts before appearing at large venues. We get to see all the acts at half the price (at least) and in a more intimate setting.
It has reopened, with socially distanced seating etc. All the acts have been booked for the next few months and, like last night, they are sold out. People do want to go out and enjoy themselves and have some sort of social life, even with a pandemic.
Maybe Cumbrians are hardier folk than you soft Midlanders and Southerners. I dunno! But people do still want to have a life.
People absolutely want to go out here as well. The 9:30 last orders bell got a lot of groans last night and we all just ended up in my front room until 1am and finished off four bottles of wine between the six of us.
Yes - and the profits on those 4 bottles of wine is being lost to businesses like my daughter’s and others, every night. Those businesses suffer and the chances of those groups drinking in living-rooms practising social distancing and taking all the protective steps venues have to are probably lower than they ought to be. So we get damaged or dead businesses and continued Covid. Just brilliant!
Tesco won though as we bought them on the walk back. The small one on Heath Street has a surprisingly decent selection.
Tesco isn't winning. Can I ask which kind of Tesco you bought the wine from? Because every format of Tesco is absolutely haemorrhaging shoppers. The best performing Tesco store format is superstore which has lost a mere 18% of shoppers compared to last year.
Won't a lot of business have decamped to Tesco online? We know they have added deliveries and recruited new drivers.
The Tesco share price is down since covid-19 but not so much as more discretionary spend industries. i think sales are overall fine (includes online) but extra costs for covid-19 and staff to police them means margins not the same. Tesco will survive but the likes of cineworld , waterstones,pubs etc will not unless we ditch the useless mask and 10pm curfew policy
I read somewhere that supermarket delivery operations run at a loss (although Tesco as the only one to actually charge for delivery may be different?) but they have to do it or lose volume to rivals. Perhaps Rochdale would know? (edit/ I see he says as much downthread)
Going forward that doesn't seem a sustainable model and at some point people are surely going to have to pay for delivery, or join some sort of annual subscription service like Amazon Prime.
The model of patching delivery onto existing supermarkets is not sustainable. It requires a properly designed logistics chain, designed specifically for home delivery.
There is only so long that people will tolerate ordering items that do not turn up.
Which is a feature of poor logistics chain.
For example, during the lockdown proper, Sainsburys in my area was staging their deliveries, to my area, out of a medium sized branch. In Central London.
Which made some sense for them - the branch in question was seeing no actual customers.
But they were tricking the bulk produce to central London, to a location that could not sustain the range they were offering. So, if you ordered anything that you wouldn't find in a Sainsburys Local - no dice....
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The correct answer was to write "it would be the wrong thing to do" 3 times?
Nah,
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I distinctly remember my wife's first essay question when she started her degree at Oxford* as a mature student: "Why be moral?" A good question, I thought.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
It’s wrong though. The mickey taking is coming from people who’s predisposed position is to assume that any new slogan is rubbish, and can’t be bothered to try to understand it.
The basic point is for people living life normally to take the view that the risk to themselves as individuals from the virus is pretty low - of evening catching it, let alone suffering from it, as long as they take sensible precautions along the way. Those who go out of their way to dance with the devil on the other hand..
The extent to which people rely on govt advice as to what to do, and are prepared to blame the state for things going wrong in their personal life through choices they decided to make is a massive eye opener. The virus has shone a light on this, it is incredible.
We had people on here wondering whether it would be alright to go and see their parents! I cant think there would be anyone that could stop me if we wanted to see each other
If the government really wanted us to think for ourselves and to act independently, they wouldn't have made it illegal for people to see each other.
Whether people are prepared to break the law, and whether that's justified, is a completely separate discussion.
Except it's not illegal for people to meet each other except some limited locations where the virus is judged to be out of control.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
"Limited" locations being nearly 1/4 of the entire population of England. Give me a break.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
My position is not that the government is entirely appropriate all of the time. I supported the Brady rebels because I wanted government restrictions scrutinised and justified if they were to become laws.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
Lol. You're still blaming Starmer for failing to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. You are ridiculous.
You're right, why should I expect Starmer to provide opposition to the Government Ministers having powers to make laws without going to Parliament.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it? It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Starmer voting against the bill and still losing would have made a difference, how?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
If Starmer had voted against and lost then fair enough at least he would have tried and I wouldn't be able to say he didn't would I?
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
"If" "if "if". You are essentially criticising Labour instead of your own party for being shit. It's incredibly transparent.
At least my party is trying during a pandemic to do something.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
Labour is not "my party".
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.
Comments
I think my just finished European trip, finalised during the brief window when the government was actually encouraging people to book foreign holidays, was 'fearless with common sense'. Fearless because I went ahead despite the risks and had a very good time (the absence of mass tourism actually makes travelling right now much more enjoyable), and did my tiny bit for keeping economic activity and social contact between nations ticking over. But with plenty of common sense taking every sensible precaution to stay safe. Yet there are those here who continue to argue that any foreign travel is reckless and should be banned.
There will be those who think that going to big indoor gatherings is fearless common sense - after all, it's a statistical fact that your chance of coming into contact with an infectious carrier are still pretty tiny in most of the country. Yet I wouldn't do so.
Hence no behaviour is going to change as a result of this latest government communications misstep.
'After the debate, 19% of registered voters who watched said they switched their vote, with 11% backing Trump and 8% shifting to Biden. Nearly everyone who said they switched to Trump had voted for him in 2016. Half those who switched to Biden had voted for Clinton in 2016. The others included Trump voters, nonvoters and third-party voters.'
https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows-after-presidential-debate-ibd-tipp-poll/
I don't care what the government wants me to do, that is my point!
That fundamental disconnect is why it doesn't work. The "rules" don't allow for judgement.
It's one of the few things people were able to do this year and by definition if you're going round spreading the virus in the cinema or the supermarket or the shopping mall or whatever you don't know you've spread it to them but when you get it and you were asked who you were in contact with "mm yes I was sat a couple of feet away from my mum/dad/uncle/niece/gran etc." is not an entirely surprising thing to remember.
It doesn't mean house gatherings shouldn't necessarily be limited but I would wonder if the narrative really makes sense to essentially put so much of the "blame" on this aspect.
My take on this is that the "fearless" element is a reference to the economy.
John Maynard Keynes coined the phrase "animal spirits" to describe how people arrive at financial decisions, including buying and selling in times of economic stress or uncertainty. Rishi Sunak has already specifically refered to animal spirits at the start of the eat out to get covid (sorry help out) campaign on the Andrew Marr program.
Boris's message is an attempt to encourage everyone to do something, rather than just sit on a sofa and play computer games/flirt on social media, to keep the economy moving.
The profit would be swallowed by having physical outlets - which rather suggest where this goes. Fully online wins again vs bricks and mortar.
I'm still curious given Malmesbury's tables why Warrington is on that list.
There are far too many laws and many of them are silly and not enforced, so I certainly dont follow them all to the letter but what the government makes law does impact my behaviour.
So your position is - people should be allowed to judge their own risk, unless the government decides that they shouldn't be allowed to judge their own risk anymore.
Ridiculous.
When I didn't work at home it was a very different matter, so the assessment for supermarkets has to be whether much of their customer base will carry on wfh.
The point is holding the WH for three terms, rather like winning four UK GEs, doesn't happen that often. A two-term VP has, as we see, only a 4/1 chance of getting the top job. IF Trump/Pence win in November, Pence's chances of retaining the WH for the GOP in 2024 don't look that good.
McCain was therefore always going to struggle as was Romney since, as you have often stated, the post-war period has only seen one incumbent President defeated and that was Carter in 1980.
I'm not sure that in itself strengthens the argument a centrist Republican can't win - I'm quite happy to argue a conservative Republican would have lost in 2008 and 2012.
I'm hoping for a more competitive Merseyside Derby in a fortnight.
Not just against guidance, but illegal. How do you not know this?
If there is a vaccine available in 3 months, then the policy should be continue the furlough for 3 months & have very severe restrictions to minimise deaths.
But, if the efficient vaccine comes in 3 years, then a completely different policy is needed.
I just doubt whether any useful scientific/epidemiological/economic forecasting can be done when there is a huge, largely unquantifiable unknown, and when the results depend so sensitively on that unknown.
Growing up in Merseyside in the eighties it seemed the only question as to who would win was red or blue. Be fun to have that back again.
I have a feeling that commodity cinemas are on the way out. Even before COVID, they were getting emptier and emptier. I was working in a role that had Vitality health insurance - I ended up getting 4 tickets a week, free to see anything I wanted at Vue. For a couple of years, we were going every week - running out of things to see... Never saw the cinema even half full. Often showing big releases to 10% full houses.
The cinema addicts will head for the latest generation of "sofa" cinemas, I think.
I think it's a shade bullish given the uncertainty of the coming winter - we simply don't know how the virus will develop during the colder months in the northern hemisphere and whether we'll see a renewed burst of cases as more social life is forced indoors.
https://twitter.com/RossFootball/status/1312718836681117697
The famous 1982 WC double substitution with England in a hole and just a few minutes left.
It is a shame Starmer was too frit to oppose handing blanket powers to Ministers to do this without scrutiny.
We could have fans in at Goodison on the 17th, just imagine the atmosphere even with just a few thousand fans.
But having fans at a football ground is dangerous but having people indoors at cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall is fine.
There are major uncertainties, we don't need to add to them.
Occaso et el will win that game in the end - as with Amazon, the advantage is that they only need to own/rent the logistics chain, not stores.
It's not like he's Leader of the Opposition is it?
It's not as if Ministers having to justify laws would enable him to scrutinise them is it?
Or are you still on your fantasy unicorn that somehow the bill would have easily failed if Starmer had whipped Labour against it?
But, for small x, an exponential is linear.
$\exp(nx) \approx 1 + nx$
The problem is that you only find out whether you are on an exponential curve when it is too late.
The old-fashioned multiplex has been killed off by the studios themselves, insisting on all of the revenue from new releases and forcing the cinemas to rely on concession revenue.
That, and a few years of mostly forgettable sequels rather than innovative movies, alongside customers who increasingly find it impossible to put down their phones for a couple of hours.
There will still be some markets left for cinemas, namely the annual massive blockbuster movie, the 'VIP' experience with good food and alcohol served, and the teenagers who don't care what's on as they're more interested in each other than the screen.
Those markets are not going to sustain a couple of dozen-screen multiplexes in every town in the country going forward, there will necessarily be closures and refurbishments required.
And its not like linear growth is not alarming and a need for action, it is and it was. They basically handed out a stick to sceptics (who are mainly ridiculous) and said, "here, beat us with this within 2 weeks and undermine our message".
We were asked to list three reasons why we shouldn't do anything illegal, mine were
1) I would not do well in prison.
2) My mother wouldn't cope with the scandal, this is the woman who fainted with shock when she opened my first ever speeding letter
3) It would be a career ender for me
Apparently the correct answer is 'It would be the wrong thing to do'.
The honour system for the Trumpists in place of testing for the debate seems very reckless now.
If he had voted against the Brady rebels could have joined him. If they hadn't then the Ministerial powers would be because they flaked out, not Starmer.
1) It would be the wrong thing to do.
2) It would bring the profession into disrepute and undermine trust confidence.
3) There are no victimless crimes.
I also think that there will be a market for pricey, top-line small cinemas. They are building one nearby - apparently already over-subscribed for membership (pre COVID). The plans show huge amounts of space per patron.... table service, full restaurant etc.
https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1312722839901024256?s=19
The reason why we have this catastrofuck with universities and the looming mass business extinction event with the end of the Furlough scheme and the go to the pub don't go to the pub contradiction is because they made no plans for how to manage the pox through the autumn as it was supposed to have gone away by now.
It is this basic lack of comprehension that is the government's problem, the increasingly absurd restrictions are merely the symptoms of this lack of comprehension. You can't cure stupid - and so many members of the cabinet were chosen specifically for their stupidity - which means we can't endure the coming mess without increasing chaos. And their lack of comprehension as to how trade works will just add to the fun as we collapse out the end of the transition period and everything just stops.
It's like a posh Middlesbrough but closer to Newcastle/Sunderland.
You know that phenomenum where you supress really terrible memories?...
Thanks 😬
If Trump loses, Repulicans are going to need to think about whether to be serious in 2024. The temptation will be to go for a pale Trump imitation or another sort of ultra-conservative. But that's just a way to lose even more badly by removing the undeniable, if utterly unhinged, charisma. If they are serious about winning, they will tack to the slightly more moderate.
It's the old Blair anecdote he rolls out every five minutes about a question from a Labour member at a post-1983 constituency meeting along the lines, "The electorate rejected us pretty badly at the election. What do you think is wrong with them?" It's only by through the stages of grief that you get to the right place.
Something similar is true for the Democrats, mind. They did move through the stages of grief just in time to dodge the Sanders bullet, and nominated a candidate who is sensible to the point of being totally uninspiring to many. If he loses, what then? There will be a huge grassroots temptation to say "f*** 'em" and nominate AOC or whoever, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Your party which is both in government and leading the opposition can't be bothered to either do anything or oppose.
If you tried to model the data with errors over September, you may well conclude that an exponential is as good as or is a better fit than a straight line.
(Now maybe you should also include the August data, as you suggest, but it is quite arguable that you should not, that the circumstances of the underlying pandemic were changing).
For example, during the lockdown proper, Sainsburys in my area was staging their deliveries, to my area, out of a medium sized branch. In Central London.
Which made some sense for them - the branch in question was seeing no actual customers.
But they were tricking the bulk produce to central London, to a location that could not sustain the range they were offering. So, if you ordered anything that you wouldn't find in a Sainsburys Local - no dice....
So after a couple of attempts, we abandoned them.
(*Brookes but she tends to forget to mention that bit.)
Very scenic and accessible.
Regardless, your party is the one in government. It's literally their job to do something, and Labour's job to tell them how shit they are. Deciding to impotently lose a vote is not "opposing". If your party is not happy with its own government, it's their responsibility to sort it out.