I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is - and the Republicans have been at it at state level for a while. And succeeded with the Arizona and Georgia state supreme courts.
Yes, it's rubbish there too, developing that into a national strategy is stupid. Though the whole idea of partisan justices seems an odd thing to me and ultimately I don't really care because it's America, not the UK.
I care as it's a practical exercise in showing how separation of powers can (or can't) work, in one of the world's largest and most influential democracies.
I still have a slim hope that a Biden administration might be able to broker a deal on term limits for the court, which would be by some distance the best way to resolve the situation (but also one of the more difficult ways to do so).
Especially as the 'postponements' are at no cost whatever.
Operations are not being delayed Cancer checks are not being missed in their millions. There is no upsurge in mental illness. Hundreds of thousands are not losing everything.
What's not to like about consequence-free postponements of death for people with an average age of 82 with 2.7 co-morbidities?
At least part of that is the wrong way round.
If cases are kept low, then hospitals have capacity to do those other things.
If cases are not kept under control, then everything else has to shut down to treat the coronavirus patients.
I know there were still a lot of postponements in hospital care over the summer, my own family was affected and I think most of those services should have been up and running at full capacity again when cases were low. It's a failing that they were not.
As for the mental health and economic consequences, those are real and dire, but not controlling cases have consequences there too.
Whatever approach is taken, there are plenty of downsides. I remain unconvinced that attempting to control cases in the short to medium term is the worst option.
PS: If we really want to decide we no longer care about 82 year olds (is that ok, @OldKingCole ?) then we should note that most of those suffering most from the restrictions to hospital services are older people with morbidity. Yes, there will of course be younger people missing cancer checks and diagnoses and possibly treatment (but in Leeds at least I know for a fact that e.g. children's cancer services have been running at full rate throughout) but they'll be in a minority, just as they are in a minority of those dying from coronavirus.
It also shows that as well as not understanding big numbers, people don't understand averages, either. They seem to want to use the average as the representative of the entire distribution, for some reason. It just means (for a median) that half were above this and half were below.
If half of all people who died were under 82.4, does that mean that if all those over 82.4 who died had been fine, there wouldn't have been a problem? Would half the number of deaths have been okay?
Because it would still be staggering, and involve not a single person over 82.4
It also glosses over the hospitalisations, which would be crucial if we didn't take steps to control the virus. A big chunk of those hospitalised would have died without hospital assistance.
The median age since the start of August of those hospitalised has been 64. So half were older; half were younger.
The interquartile range was 44-80.
So a quarter were under 44.
That makes the implication that it only affects octogenarians look a bit daft.
Agree wholeheartedly. Many also implicitly presume that people being ill/admitted to hospital/dying of Covid19 has a negligible negative impact on the economy.
I will vote Yes in an independence referendum. Doesn't mean that I will vote SNP. I think the UK in its current form is broken and unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that I will be supporting the creation of a one party state.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is - and the Republicans have been at it at state level for a while. And succeeded with the Arizona and Georgia state supreme courts.
Yes, it's rubbish there too, developing that into a national strategy is stupid. Though the whole idea of partisan justices seems an odd thing to me and ultimately I don't really care because it's America, not the UK.
Partisan and elected judges is a wierd one to an outsider.
The one that really gets me though, is the level of micromanagement by politicians in the electoral process itself - so we get a mayor or a governor specifying how many polling stations are allowed where and what time they open, then after the election they get to draw the boundaries as they see fit. Maybe the founding fathers never expected the hyper-partisanship we have today.
They did - they just thought there would be a number of different competing factions, rather than two.
A labour lead would not be a giddy-aunt moment. We’ve already had them. So it must be a massive Labour lead, or.... what? The Lib Dems down to 2? The Greens on double figures (why?).
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Can someone explain to me just how Liverpool's tier 3 for 28 days differs from a circuit breaker wanted by Starmer other than he wants to paralyse the whole of England irrespective of infection rates
The local lockdowns have been demonstrable failures. The national lockdown in April worked.
Precisely. We need to replicate what we did in March/April, but this time use a proper test, trace and isolate system afterwards to keep R down.
We won't though. The government doesn't have the guts or authority to do so, and so will just press on with these half-hearted measures while the bodies pile up and the economy collapses. Oh, and Brexit. Merry Christmas.
But what do you mean by proper trace system? Nobody in the west has one, because even for small case numbers it isn't possible to keep up with the spread.
It's possible for low case numbers, but for what we've got now, you really need mass testing - isolation. If you detect enough of the infected, tracing can be eliminated for the equation.
Exactly. If we isolated all 17k people who received positive tests yesterday it takes a huge amount of active virus out of the community. As long as we're getting the vast majority of symptomatic people isolated for 14 days the virus will begin to burn out.
Maybe you remember which study but I do remember reading that asymptomatic spread has an R of around 1.3 with no NPIs while symptomatic spread has an R of over 4 with no NPIs. Add in a minimum of social distancing and mask wearing that 1.3 falls below 1 for asymptomatic spread (assuming a majority of these people aren't isolated) and isolating the highly infectious symptomatic leads to eventual burn out. It's literally what Singapore has achieved and could be achieved here without needing a hugely sophisticated tracking app which needs to look into credit card records or have QR check in etc...
Isolation of symptomatic people and social distancing is the answer, we're just not going to be able to build a reliable enough tracing system which reduces transmission rates with self certified isolation.
If I was a an ambitious politician who wanted to be leader of my party and the entirety of my platform was claims that the current leader is deeply unpopular with the public at large I'd probably choose this moment to not be that.
Can someone explain to me just how Liverpool's tier 3 for 28 days differs from a circuit breaker wanted by Starmer other than he wants to paralyse the whole of England irrespective of infection rates
The local lockdowns have been demonstrable failures. The national lockdown in April worked.
Precisely. We need to replicate what we did in March/April, but this time use a proper test, trace and isolate system afterwards to keep R down.
We won't though. The government doesn't have the guts or authority to do so, and so will just press on with these half-hearted measures while the bodies pile up and the economy collapses. Oh, and Brexit. Merry Christmas.
But what do you mean by proper trace system? Nobody in the west has one, because even for small case numbers it isn't possible to keep up with the spread.
It's possible for low case numbers, but for what we've got now, you really need mass testing - isolation. If you detect enough of the infected, tracing can be eliminated for the equation.
Exactly. If we isolated all 17k people who received positive tests yesterday it takes a huge amount of active virus out of the community. As long as we're getting the vast majority of symptomatic people isolated for 14 days the virus will begin to burn out.
Maybe you remember which study but I do remember reading that asymptomatic spread has an R of around 1.3 with no NPIs while symptomatic spread has an R of over 4 with no NPIs. Add in a minimum of social distancing and mask wearing that 1.3 falls below 1 for asymptomatic spread (assuming a majority of these people aren't isolated) and isolating the highly infectious symptomatic leads to eventual burn out. It's literally what Singapore has achieved and could be achieved here without needing a hugely sophisticated tracking app which needs to look into credit card records or have QR check in etc...
Isolation of symptomatic people and social distancing is the answer, we're just not going to be able to build a reliable enough tracing system which reduces transmission rates with self certified isolation.
Why can't we get the army to do door-to-door saliva testing of whole LAs, like the Chinese are doing? Doesn't seem particularly onerous or authoritarian.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is.
Doing nothing after the Republicans packed the court is a rubbish idea too.
The rebuplicans had a fair wind, they didn't add justices. It just means the next time there's a GOP president and house they'll add 6 more until the bench becomes huge.
I think the shanigans the Republicans have gotten up to are more than a 'fair wind' but so what if the GOP do that next time? That's next time's problem, the Democrats adding Justices now would be payback for what the Republicans have already done not may theoretically do next time.
The bridge has already been crossed of bending the rules past breaking point, so two need to play at that game. If traditional rules still applied then the Democrats could fillibuster ACB until after the new President is inaugurated, they can't because the GOP have changed the rules. Adding Justices is within the rules.
No it's a rubbish idea which turns into a ridiculous arms race and before you know there bench is 101 and growing.
The Dems got unlucky with the timings of deaths and not controling the senate. That will swing back and it's clear that Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie and even Kavanaugh has some Independent thought. I don't know what the new person is about but I'm sure she's more than qualified to hold the position.
The essential problem is that with the confirmation of Barrett, you will have a conservative court perhaps for the next two decades - and one which was made so on the back of the votes of a minority of the US popular vote. Waiting a generation for it to 'swing back' is really not politically viable. And will become less so once a 6-3 court starts issuing rulings.
The court had a certain balance. It was technically a "5/4" conservative lean but that is not sufficient to hardcode a bias. Swapping the most liberal judge for a conservative fundamentalist doesn't just tilt the court it transforms it. You now have a significant bias potentially in place for 20 years. If Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate they are bound to do something about it. Doubt they will choose expansion of the bench though. I think it will be something less explosive and more defensible to non partisans.
The Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency just once since the 1980s (and even then only with the advantage of incumbency). That is no mandate for controlling the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats have every right to fix this travesty in whatever way the constitution allows.
I find most aspects of the American administration very strange. Ideally, there is separation of the of the executive and legislative branches of government and the judiciary is independant. What I now realise is that EVERYTHING in america is partisan and it doesn't matter if there's a sensible proposal put forward. If its from the 'wrong' side it will be blown out of the water and both sides are as bad as each other. There is no honour at all, only tribal loyalty and money.
The level of corruption within American politics is astounding, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, blatant lies, etc. The US is truley a very different culture to ours, the only similarity is a broadly similar language.
Tories down 3 points, after a shit storm. The Starmer Out brigade will love it.
Yeah we're not in a USA-2020 voting dynamic here right now. People know the Tories haven't been very good but substantively Starmer and Johnson are very close on Covid measures. It's not Biden vs Trump.
OTOH The dam has burst in Scotland on independence.
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
Put bluntly, it's the Unionists' fault. There has never been a properly articulated case for way staying together, all it has been "you'll lose money, oil is running out, what about the currency etc." It is a negative case, all what you can't do etc etc. No one wants to hear that all the time.
The SNP, for all their faults (and I am not a fan) has always articulated a positive vision of Scotland surviving on its own. Now personally (sorry @malcolmg, @Theuniondivvie et al) I think its is a crock of sh1t but (a) I am not Scottish and (b) it's actually uplifting and resonates.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is - and the Republicans have been at it at state level for a while. And succeeded with the Arizona and Georgia state supreme courts.
Yes, it's rubbish there too, developing that into a national strategy is stupid. Though the whole idea of partisan justices seems an odd thing to me and ultimately I don't really care because it's America, not the UK.
I care as it's a practical exercise in showing how separation of powers can (or can't) work, in one of the world's largest and most influential democracies.
I still have a slim hope that a Biden administration might be able to broker a deal on term limits for the court, which would be by some distance the best way to resolve the situation (but also one of the more difficult ways to do so).
If any president genuinely wants to put the sureme court onto a neutral footing, it could not just be imposed by a president brokering a deal. The chance that that would get overturned next time the pendulum swings is too high. The best way is for the president is to convince everyone the current situation is untenable and set out a long term program, probably with some kind of special comittee and a change in the constitution.
We're going to have a deal agreed in principle by tomorrow, surely? Or, if not, we'll know tomorrow that it's a no-deal crash out. The uncertainty will be over. That's what Boris said, and he's not a man to miss a self-imposed deadline.
Yep. It's Do or Die day. So learning from history it looks like he gets thwarted by an alliance of spineless MPs and nefarious Eurocrats and it's a snap "Save Our Fish!" general election in December.
All that'd do is give him the seat numbers May had back in 2017 or so ! He'd be in a worse spot.
You don't think he can win an even bigger landslide on "British fish for British fisherman"?
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
We'll get the money from the EU like every other small country...
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Whisky, Haggis, Tartan, Deep Fried Mars bars - Scotland holds all the cards!
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
As it should be. Fear will only hold people back so long.
If you believe in Britain then say why. Loudly and proudly.
Otherwise its just time to put the union out of its misery.
Can someone explain to me just how Liverpool's tier 3 for 28 days differs from a circuit breaker wanted by Starmer other than he wants to paralyse the whole of England irrespective of infection rates
The local lockdowns have been demonstrable failures. The national lockdown in April worked.
Precisely. We need to replicate what we did in March/April, but this time use a proper test, trace and isolate system afterwards to keep R down.
We won't though. The government doesn't have the guts or authority to do so, and so will just press on with these half-hearted measures while the bodies pile up and the economy collapses. Oh, and Brexit. Merry Christmas.
But what do you mean by proper trace system? Nobody in the west has one, because even for small case numbers it isn't possible to keep up with the spread.
It's possible for low case numbers, but for what we've got now, you really need mass testing - isolation. If you detect enough of the infected, tracing can be eliminated for the equation.
Exactly. If we isolated all 17k people who received positive tests yesterday it takes a huge amount of active virus out of the community. As long as we're getting the vast majority of symptomatic people isolated for 14 days the virus will begin to burn out.
Maybe you remember which study but I do remember reading that asymptomatic spread has an R of around 1.3 with no NPIs while symptomatic spread has an R of over 4 with no NPIs. Add in a minimum of social distancing and mask wearing that 1.3 falls below 1 for asymptomatic spread (assuming a majority of these people aren't isolated) and isolating the highly infectious symptomatic leads to eventual burn out. It's literally what Singapore has achieved and could be achieved here without needing a hugely sophisticated tracking app which needs to look into credit card records or have QR check in etc...
Isolation of symptomatic people and social distancing is the answer, we're just not going to be able to build a reliable enough tracing system which reduces transmission rates with self certified isolation.
Why can't we get the army to do door-to-door saliva testing of whole LAs, like the Chinese are doing? Doesn't seem particularly onerous or authoritarian.
The point is that you build a system where people are happy to isolate which is laid out yesterday. Good quality hotel rooms and catered food as well as £500 per week in isolation. It's not about copying China and welding doors shut or having the PLA roll tanks down the street. It's about finding a solution that works for the nation that doesn't destroy the economy.
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
I am a passionate advocate for the Union. Heck, I am part Ulsterman, part Welsh and part English. And I have a Scottish Godson.
But sadly I think a period of Scottish indy is probably inevitable in my lifetime.
I'm more interested in how Scottish indy doesn't result in hugely unpopular austerity - 30% cut or more in public services.
We're going to have a deal agreed in principle by tomorrow, surely? Or, if not, we'll know tomorrow that it's a no-deal crash out. The uncertainty will be over. That's what Boris said, and he's not a man to miss a self-imposed deadline.
Yep. It's Do or Die day. So learning from history it looks like he gets thwarted by an alliance of spineless MPs and nefarious Eurocrats and it's a snap "Save Our Fish!" general election in December.
All that'd do is give him the seat numbers May had back in 2017 or so ! He'd be in a worse spot.
You don't think he can win an even bigger landslide on "British fish for British fisherman"?
You are a effete person lacking in faith.
Maybe I'm sui generis but part of the reason I voted Tory in 2019 was to as Boris put it "Get Brexit done". We're outside the EU now so as far as I'm concerned the democratic mandate of the referendum is completely fulfilled. No need to reward the conservatives a second time on that count.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is.
Doing nothing after the Republicans packed the court is a rubbish idea too.
The rebuplicans had a fair wind, they didn't add justices. It just means the next time there's a GOP president and house they'll add 6 more until the bench becomes huge.
I think the shanigans the Republicans have gotten up to are more than a 'fair wind' but so what if the GOP do that next time? That's next time's problem, the Democrats adding Justices now would be payback for what the Republicans have already done not may theoretically do next time.
The bridge has already been crossed of bending the rules past breaking point, so two need to play at that game. If traditional rules still applied then the Democrats could fillibuster ACB until after the new President is inaugurated, they can't because the GOP have changed the rules. Adding Justices is within the rules.
No it's a rubbish idea which turns into a ridiculous arms race and before you know there bench is 101 and growing.
The Dems got unlucky with the timings of deaths and not controling the senate. That will swing back and it's clear that Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie and even Kavanaugh has some Independent thought. I don't know what the new person is about but I'm sure she's more than qualified to hold the position.
The essential problem is that with the confirmation of Barrett, you will have a conservative court perhaps for the next two decades - and one which was made so on the back of the votes of a minority of the US popular vote. Waiting a generation for it to 'swing back' is really not politically viable. And will become less so once a 6-3 court starts issuing rulings.
Is it 6-3 though?
With Barrett ? Essentially, yes.
Sure, you'd get Roberts or Gorsuch, or occasionally Kavanaugh voting with the liberals from time to time, but 6-3 means that you need two to switch sides to make a difference. It means a pretty dramatic shift to the right on all sorts of issues.
Put bluntly, it's the Unionists' fault. There has never been a properly articulated case for way staying together, all it has been "you'll lose money, oil is running out, what about the currency etc." It is a negative case, all what you can't do etc etc. No one wants to hear that all the time.
The SNP, for all their faults (and I am not a fan) has always articulated a positive vision of Scotland surviving on its own. Now personally (sorry @malcolmg, @Theuniondivvie et al) I think its is a crock of sh1t but (a) I am not Scottish and (b) it's actually uplifting and resonates.
Put bluntly, it's the Unionists' fault. There has never been a properly articulated case for way staying together, all it has been "you'll lose money, oil is running out, what about the currency etc." It is a negative case, all what you can't do etc etc. No one wants to hear that all the time.
The SNP, for all their faults (and I am not a fan) has always articulated a positive vision of Scotland surviving on its own. Now personally (sorry @malcolmg, @Theuniondivvie et al) I think its is a crock of sh1t but (a) I am not Scottish and (b) it's actually uplifting and resonates.
All true. BUT, Boris will not allow a vote. Paradoxically, the worse the Indy polling, the less likely he is to yield. If the polls say he is certain to lose the union, he has nothing to gain by acceding to SNP demands. And if that means he annoys Scots, it doesn’t matter, they’re annoyed already. So wtf
However a new indyref vote after the next UK GE in 2024 looks certain, and as things stand will quite likely be lost. Dire times for the union.
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
As it should be. Fear will only hold people back so long.
If you believe in Britain then say why. Loudly and proudly.
Otherwise its just time to put the union out of its misery.
The PM doesn't believe in Britain. A border down the Irish Sea was already a big fuck you to the union.
I find most aspects of the American administration very strange. Ideally, there is separation of the of the executive and legislative branches of government and the judiciary is independant. What I now realise is that EVERYTHING in america is partisan and it doesn't matter if there's a sensible proposal put forward. If its from the 'wrong' side it will be blown out of the water and both sides are as bad as each other. There is no honour at all, only tribal loyalty and money.
The level of corruption within American politics is astounding, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, blatant lies, etc. The US is truley a very different culture to ours, the only similarity is a broadly similar language.
The UK, even at its worst is better than this.
Agreed. A relative of mine was a senior architect working for New York City in the Rockefeller days when it wasn't always Democratic. He turned down all offers of promotion above a certain grade because it would have moved him into the bracket where everyone could and probably would be fired if there was a change of administration. Entirely uninterested in politics, he felt that his job security had to come first.
An architect FFS. How sensible is it to politicise that?
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
As it should be. Fear will only hold people back so long.
If you believe in Britain then say why. Loudly and proudly.
Otherwise its just time to put the union out of its misery.
The PM doesn't believe in Britain. A border down the Irish Sea was already a big fuck you to the union.
What border down the Irish Sea? When was it implemented?
Why can't we get the army to do door-to-door saliva testing of whole LAs, like the Chinese are doing? Doesn't seem particularly onerous or authoritarian.
My first choice for administering a medical test would ALWAYS be a 19 year old tattooed hooligan from 2PARA mortar platoon.
He is of course right, despite what the Tory loons on here say.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
When the scientists come and tell you that a measure will save between 3k and 107k lives....I want them to go away and come back when they have a much better estimate, before I can make an informed decision.
The Tories laid the groundwork for Scottish independence with their response to the 2014 referendum, built on that during the 2015 GE campaign, added stronger foundations with Brexit and then topped it all off by making Johnson their leader. The SNP could not have asked for more.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is.
Doing nothing after the Republicans packed the court is a rubbish idea too.
The rebuplicans had a fair wind, they didn't add justices. It just means the next time there's a GOP president and house they'll add 6 more until the bench becomes huge.
I think the shanigans the Republicans have gotten up to are more than a 'fair wind' but so what if the GOP do that next time? That's next time's problem, the Democrats adding Justices now would be payback for what the Republicans have already done not may theoretically do next time.
The bridge has already been crossed of bending the rules past breaking point, so two need to play at that game. If traditional rules still applied then the Democrats could fillibuster ACB until after the new President is inaugurated, they can't because the GOP have changed the rules. Adding Justices is within the rules.
No it's a rubbish idea which turns into a ridiculous arms race and before you know there bench is 101 and growing.
The Dems got unlucky with the timings of deaths and not controling the senate. That will swing back and it's clear that Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie and even Kavanaugh has some Independent thought. I don't know what the new person is about but I'm sure she's more than qualified to hold the position.
The essential problem is that with the confirmation of Barrett, you will have a conservative court perhaps for the next two decades - and one which was made so on the back of the votes of a minority of the US popular vote. Waiting a generation for it to 'swing back' is really not politically viable. And will become less so once a 6-3 court starts issuing rulings.
The court had a certain balance. It was technically a "5/4" conservative lean but that is not sufficient to hardcode a bias. Swapping the most liberal judge for a conservative fundamentalist doesn't just tilt the court it transforms it. You now have a significant bias potentially in place for 20 years. If Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate they are bound to do something about it. Doubt they will choose expansion of the bench though. I think it will be something less explosive and more defensible to non partisans.
The Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency just once since the 1980s (and even then only with the advantage of incumbency). That is no mandate for controlling the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats have every right to fix this travesty in whatever way the constitution allows.
In the 28 years since the 1992 elections the Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years and the Republicans 12, but the Republicans have held the Senate for 20 years and the Democrats only 8.
During this period the Republicans have successfully strengthened the role of the Senate in judicial appointments. It's said that a large majority of voters are opposed to Conservative judicial appointments and rulings on abortion and healthcare. The job of Democrats is to make sure that voters cast their vote on that basis and win control of the Senate.
The Tories laid the groundwork for Scottish independence with their response to the 2014 referendum, built on that during the 2015 GE campaign, added stronger foundations with Brexit and then topped it all off by making Johnson their leader. The SNP could not have asked for more.
He is of course right, despite what the Tory loons on here say.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
No he isn't. This idea that 2 weeks is the right approach is nonsense as are SAGE's estimates for how many lives it could save. Nobody will have any clue if 2 weeks is enough, and I presume why NI are going for a month (to start with).
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is.
Doing nothing after the Republicans packed the court is a rubbish idea too.
The rebuplicans had a fair wind, they didn't add justices. It just means the next time there's a GOP president and house they'll add 6 more until the bench becomes huge.
I think the shanigans the Republicans have gotten up to are more than a 'fair wind' but so what if the GOP do that next time? That's next time's problem, the Democrats adding Justices now would be payback for what the Republicans have already done not may theoretically do next time.
The bridge has already been crossed of bending the rules past breaking point, so two need to play at that game. If traditional rules still applied then the Democrats could fillibuster ACB until after the new President is inaugurated, they can't because the GOP have changed the rules. Adding Justices is within the rules.
No it's a rubbish idea which turns into a ridiculous arms race and before you know there bench is 101 and growing.
The Dems got unlucky with the timings of deaths and not controling the senate. That will swing back and it's clear that Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie and even Kavanaugh has some Independent thought. I don't know what the new person is about but I'm sure she's more than qualified to hold the position.
The essential problem is that with the confirmation of Barrett, you will have a conservative court perhaps for the next two decades - and one which was made so on the back of the votes of a minority of the US popular vote. Waiting a generation for it to 'swing back' is really not politically viable. And will become less so once a 6-3 court starts issuing rulings.
The court had a certain balance. It was technically a "5/4" conservative lean but that is not sufficient to hardcode a bias. Swapping the most liberal judge for a conservative fundamentalist doesn't just tilt the court it transforms it. You now have a significant bias potentially in place for 20 years. If Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate they are bound to do something about it. Doubt they will choose expansion of the bench though. I think it will be something less explosive and more defensible to non partisans.
The Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency just once since the 1980s (and even then only with the advantage of incumbency). That is no mandate for controlling the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats have every right to fix this travesty in whatever way the constitution allows.
In the 28 years since the 1992 elections the Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years and the Republicans 12, but the Republicans have held the Senate for 20 years and the Democrats only 8.
During this period the Republicans have successfully strengthened the role of the Senate in judicial appointments. It's said that a large majority of voters are opposed to Conservative judicial appointments and rulings on abortion and healthcare. The job of Democrats is to make sure that voters cast their vote on that basis and win control of the Senate.
Hence why as much as dealing with SCOTUS is important, dealing with the Senate is too. If there are still only 50 States by 2022 then the Democrats will have thrown away a golden opportunity and left millions of Americans disenfranchised.
I find most aspects of the American administration very strange. Ideally, there is separation of the of the executive and legislative branches of government and the judiciary is independant. What I now realise is that EVERYTHING in america is partisan and it doesn't matter if there's a sensible proposal put forward. If its from the 'wrong' side it will be blown out of the water and both sides are as bad as each other. There is no honour at all, only tribal loyalty and money.
The level of corruption within American politics is astounding, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, blatant lies, etc. The US is truley a very different culture to ours, the only similarity is a broadly similar language.
The UK, even at its worst is better than this.
Agreed. A relative of mine was a senior architect working for New York City in the Rockefeller days when it wasn't always Democratic. He turned down all offers of promotion above a certain grade because it would have moved him into the bracket where everyone could and probably would be fired if there was a change of administration. Entirely uninterested in politics, he felt that his job security had to come first.
An architect FFS. How sensible is it to politicise that?
How sensible is it to have architects on the city payroll?
I just don't see how the nascent Scottish state funds public services - several businessmen I deal with/have dealt with in Scotland confessed to me, unprompted, that they'd be on the motorway to England if it ever went indy....IF they could sell their houses.
Sounds like project fear to me. Believe in Scotland.
Its not like Brexit, where a handful of business CEOs said this. I deal with SMEs. It would be wholesale. IF house prices didn't collapse.
I'll helpfully advise you that if the case for the Union only has this kind of thing in the locker, it's done.
As it should be. Fear will only hold people back so long.
If you believe in Britain then say why. Loudly and proudly.
Otherwise its just time to put the union out of its misery.
The PM doesn't believe in Britain. A border down the Irish Sea was already a big fuck you to the union.
What border down the Irish Sea? When was it implemented?
Devolution already existed before Brexit.
Don't be obtuse. The border down the Irish Sea that he committed the UK to create. The border down the Irish Sea that won a majority of 80 at the General Election.
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is - and the Republicans have been at it at state level for a while. And succeeded with the Arizona and Georgia state supreme courts.
Yes, it's rubbish there too, developing that into a national strategy is stupid. Though the whole idea of partisan justices seems an odd thing to me and ultimately I don't really care because it's America, not the UK.
I care as it's a practical exercise in showing how separation of powers can (or can't) work, in one of the world's largest and most influential democracies.
I still have a slim hope that a Biden administration might be able to broker a deal on term limits for the court, which would be by some distance the best way to resolve the situation (but also one of the more difficult ways to do so).
If any president genuinely wants to put the sureme court onto a neutral footing, it could not just be imposed by a president brokering a deal. The chance that that would get overturned next time the pendulum swings is too high. The best way is for the president is to convince everyone the current situation is untenable and set out a long term program, probably with some kind of special comittee and a change in the constitution.
That's effectively what I mean by brokering a deal. Whether term limits require a constitutional amendment is debatable (FWIW, I don't think they do), but the necessary bipartisan agreement might be achievable, and would likely be permanent, as once term limits were agreed, it would be in neither side's interest to overturn them.
He is of course right, despite what the Tory loons on here say.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
PB Tories are rattled and polls will show a Labour lead soon
When the scientists come and tell you that a measure will save between 3k and 107k lives....I want them to go away and come back when they have a much better estimate, before I can make an informed decision.
If Boris does it, it will either not work or be for more than 2 weeks with work and schools open.
2 week circuit break with work and schools open will do as much to defeat the virus than skipping one cookie will do to defeat obesity.
Tell me: is a "2 week circuit breaker with work and schools open" what Keir proposed, because I don't think it was.
As far as I understand yes, though if I'm wrong I'll put my hands up. What else was proposed?
2 weeks is not long enough to do anything. People will gather before the lockdown, gather immediately after it and continue mingling during it. It will do sod all except immense economic damage.
If you're going to lockdown then lockdown. If you're not, find restrictions you can live with. 2 weeks achieves nothing.
I find most aspects of the American administration very strange. Ideally, there is separation of the of the executive and legislative branches of government and the judiciary is independant. What I now realise is that EVERYTHING in america is partisan and it doesn't matter if there's a sensible proposal put forward. If its from the 'wrong' side it will be blown out of the water and both sides are as bad as each other. There is no honour at all, only tribal loyalty and money.
The level of corruption within American politics is astounding, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, blatant lies, etc. The US is truley a very different culture to ours, the only similarity is a broadly similar language.
The UK, even at its worst is better than this.
Agreed. A relative of mine was a senior architect working for New York City in the Rockefeller days when it wasn't always Democratic. He turned down all offers of promotion above a certain grade because it would have moved him into the bracket where everyone could and probably would be fired if there was a change of administration. Entirely uninterested in politics, he felt that his job security had to come first.
An architect FFS. How sensible is it to politicise that?
How sensible is it to have architects on the city payroll?
Very sensible, if you're trying to shovel public money towards your dodgy friends in the construction business.
He is of course right, despite what the Tory loons on here say.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
PB Tories are rattled and polls will show a Labour lead soon
If Starmer wasn't so bloody useless they'd be showing a Labour lead already. Its remarkable they don't under the circumstances.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day though.
When the scientists come and tell you that a measure will save between 3k and 107k lives....I want them to go away and come back when they have a much better estimate, before I can make an informed decision.
And, also, is it a net figure.
Net? There is scope for a Gross figure? Those who died and were reanimated as Zombies can be deducted from the Gross Total?
He is of course right, despite what the Tory loons on here say.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
PB Tories are rattled and polls will show a Labour lead soon
If Starmer wasn't so bloody useless they'd be showing a Labour lead already. Its remarkable they don't under the circumstances.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day though.
You don't half talk some rubbish....People are quite rightly pointing out the flaw in an idea. Many of the wiser posters also pointed out the flaw in SAGE advice to only test hospital admissions, that masks didn't work and therefore the public should not be told to wear them, etc.
Proposing a policy that you can't evaluate and that your guess-estimate is an order of magnitude different between the upper and lower bound is quite rightly being pointed out as not very wise.
You don't half talk some rubbish....People are quite rightly pointing out the flaw in an idea. Many of the wiser posters also pointed out the flaw in SAGE advice to only test hospital admissions, that masks didn't work and therefore the public should not be told to wear them, etc.
You're rattled too, it's okay, I know you'll be flipping when Johnson announces the same policy
I come back to the obvious. The fact that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so desperate to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Nov 3rd tells you they know they've lost. And almost certainly not only the White House but Congress.
I hope Biden adds two more Justices so as to compound the Republican's defeat...
Biden should add 4 justices and 2 States.
Packing the court is a rubbish idea.
It is.
Doing nothing after the Republicans packed the court is a rubbish idea too.
The rebuplicans had a fair wind, they didn't add justices. It just means the next time there's a GOP president and house they'll add 6 more until the bench becomes huge.
I think the shanigans the Republicans have gotten up to are more than a 'fair wind' but so what if the GOP do that next time? That's next time's problem, the Democrats adding Justices now would be payback for what the Republicans have already done not may theoretically do next time.
The bridge has already been crossed of bending the rules past breaking point, so two need to play at that game. If traditional rules still applied then the Democrats could fillibuster ACB until after the new President is inaugurated, they can't because the GOP have changed the rules. Adding Justices is within the rules.
No it's a rubbish idea which turns into a ridiculous arms race and before you know there bench is 101 and growing.
The Dems got unlucky with the timings of deaths and not controling the senate. That will swing back and it's clear that Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie and even Kavanaugh has some Independent thought. I don't know what the new person is about but I'm sure she's more than qualified to hold the position.
The essential problem is that with the confirmation of Barrett, you will have a conservative court perhaps for the next two decades - and one which was made so on the back of the votes of a minority of the US popular vote. Waiting a generation for it to 'swing back' is really not politically viable. And will become less so once a 6-3 court starts issuing rulings.
The court had a certain balance. It was technically a "5/4" conservative lean but that is not sufficient to hardcode a bias. Swapping the most liberal judge for a conservative fundamentalist doesn't just tilt the court it transforms it. You now have a significant bias potentially in place for 20 years. If Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate they are bound to do something about it. Doubt they will choose expansion of the bench though. I think it will be something less explosive and more defensible to non partisans.
The Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency just once since the 1980s (and even then only with the advantage of incumbency). That is no mandate for controlling the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats have every right to fix this travesty in whatever way the constitution allows.
In the 28 years since the 1992 elections the Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years and the Republicans 12, but the Republicans have held the Senate for 20 years and the Democrats only 8.
During this period the Republicans have successfully strengthened the role of the Senate in judicial appointments. It's said that a large majority of voters are opposed to Conservative judicial appointments and rulings on abortion and healthcare. The job of Democrats is to make sure that voters cast their vote on that basis and win control of the Senate.
The Senate has an inbuilt Republican advantage owing to the extreme distortion of granting a state like Wyoming (population <600k) the same representation as California (39.5 mn). The system is transparently rigged. The Republicans have used every trick in the book to lever their advantages and I think that the Democrats need to stop playing nice.
You don't half talk some rubbish....People are quite rightly pointing out the flaw in an idea. Many of the wiser posters also pointed out the flaw in SAGE advice to only test hospital admissions, that masks didn't work and therefore the public should not be told to wear them, etc.
You're rattled too, it's okay, I know you'll be flipping when Johnson announces the same policy
What are you talking about? I have been totally consistent on what I think the policy should be, and it isn't what Boris has proposed.
Comments
I still have a slim hope that a Biden administration might be able to broker a deal on term limits for the court, which would be by some distance the best way to resolve the situation (but also one of the more difficult ways to do so).
SNP hoping to stay united.
Many also implicitly presume that people being ill/admitted to hospital/dying of Covid19 has a negligible negative impact on the economy.
https://twitter.com/feedthedrummer/status/1316334735375900678?s=21
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1316335065287266304?s=21
Maybe you remember which study but I do remember reading that asymptomatic spread has an R of around 1.3 with no NPIs while symptomatic spread has an R of over 4 with no NPIs. Add in a minimum of social distancing and mask wearing that 1.3 falls below 1 for asymptomatic spread (assuming a majority of these people aren't isolated) and isolating the highly infectious symptomatic leads to eventual burn out. It's literally what Singapore has achieved and could be achieved here without needing a hugely sophisticated tracking app which needs to look into credit card records or have QR check in etc...
Isolation of symptomatic people and social distancing is the answer, we're just not going to be able to build a reliable enough tracing system which reduces transmission rates with self certified isolation.
@IpsosMORIScot, out today with @STVNews
, puts support for a Yes vote in #indyref2 at 58% (after don’t knows and undecideds are removed)
That's a good line.
The level of corruption within American politics is astounding, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, blatant lies, etc. The US is truley a very different culture to ours, the only similarity is a broadly similar language.
The UK, even at its worst is better than this.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1316333428585893888
What if we add the Don't Knows to the No side?
Come on Scots don't be frit this time around.
https://twitter.com/BareReality/status/1306897564885831680
The SNP, for all their faults (and I am not a fan) has always articulated a positive vision of Scotland surviving on its own. Now personally (sorry @malcolmg, @Theuniondivvie et al) I think its is a crock of sh1t but (a) I am not Scottish and (b) it's actually uplifting and resonates.
The best way is for the president is to convince everyone the current situation is untenable and set out a long term program, probably with some kind of special comittee and a change in the constitution.
You are a effete person lacking in faith.
Good luck to the Scots
If you believe in Britain then say why. Loudly and proudly.
Otherwise its just time to put the union out of its misery.
But sadly I think a period of Scottish indy is probably inevitable in my lifetime.
I'm more interested in how Scottish indy doesn't result in hugely unpopular austerity - 30% cut or more in public services.
And how that remains popular?
Sure, you'd get Roberts or Gorsuch, or occasionally Kavanaugh voting with the liberals from time to time, but 6-3 means that you need two to switch sides to make a difference.
It means a pretty dramatic shift to the right on all sorts of issues.
However a new indyref vote after the next UK GE in 2024 looks certain, and as things stand will quite likely be lost. Dire times for the union.
Polling parity returns
An architect FFS. How sensible is it to politicise that?
Scottish poll is dynamite though. But don't forget Indyref2 happens on Labour's watch according to HYUFD, so nothing to do with Johnson!
In fact, why bother with anything? We're all doomed.
Devolution already existed before Brexit.
I thought following the scientific evidence was the Government strategy. You just don’t know with this lot - strategy changes every day. What an shower this Government is led by a lying, “full of shit” buffoon.
2 week circuit break with work and schools open will do as much to defeat the virus than skipping one cookie will do to defeat obesity.
During this period the Republicans have successfully strengthened the role of the Senate in judicial appointments. It's said that a large majority of voters are opposed to Conservative judicial appointments and rulings on abortion and healthcare. The job of Democrats is to make sure that voters cast their vote on that basis and win control of the Senate.
However, increased measures in tier 3 areas may be needed
Whether term limits require a constitutional amendment is debatable (FWIW, I don't think they do), but the necessary bipartisan agreement might be achievable, and would likely be permanent, as once term limits were agreed, it would be in neither side's interest to overturn them.
How Scottish indy doesn't result in real economic hardship for Scotland is a mystery to me...
2 weeks is not long enough to do anything. People will gather before the lockdown, gather immediately after it and continue mingling during it. It will do sod all except immense economic damage.
If you're going to lockdown then lockdown. If you're not, find restrictions you can live with. 2 weeks achieves nothing.
The only poll that matters is the one on election day though.
Proposing a policy that you can't evaluate and that your guess-estimate is an order of magnitude different between the upper and lower bound is quite rightly being pointed out as not very wise.