The level of anti Boris hysteria on here is now exceeding previous peaks that were largely Brexit related. It’s genuinely mad. This is a very difficult situation and I am not pretending for a moment that there are a lot of things that could have been done better but some people need to either get a grip or start offering Boris departure related bets that we can take advantage of.
They are people who are incapable of admitting being wrong who said
Leave wouldn't win, Boris wouldn't win the leadership He couldn't wangle an early GE, then he wouldn't win a landslide...
They are only human, allow them to vent their pent up anger! #ventthepent
Nobody disputes his talent for sliming his way to Boris-beneficial outcomes. It's the side-effects on, say, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and the entire UK public, and so on that's the issue.
The point is so many never-wrongs DID dispute those talents, four times!
And told us to bet on their advice
The site can be not so good at telling what ought to happen, from what is likely to happen, from what it would be profitable to bet on happening.
Anyone any idea what happens to local Remembrance day things at the war memorial - it's next Sunday and Boris didn't mention it.
It was already going to be ticket only. My guess is it will be a small handful of people outside keeping their distance from each other, with police presence.
The level of anti Boris hysteria on here is now exceeding previous peaks that were largely Brexit related. It’s genuinely mad. This is a very difficult situation and I am not pretending for a moment that there are a lot of things that could have been done better but some people need to either get a grip or start offering Boris departure related bets that we can take advantage of.
I think we need to be wary not to forgive genuinely avoidable errors and negative impacts from political decisions, but also be wary of attributing too much of the developing negative situation to specific personal attributes of individuals when the Europe wide situation, with a variety of people involved and options, is pretty damn crappy in most places. Accepting government pronouncements without question, or having no criticism at all, would surely be wrong, but leeway does need to be made (as the public, until now, largely has done).
It will take a better, more level headed person than I to come to a conclusion on that and I suspect it won't be possible until the dust has settled in 5-10 years, by which time no one will care because we'll have decided right now who we are going to blame or defend for particular matters.
The level of anti Boris hysteria on here is now exceeding previous peaks that were largely Brexit related. It’s genuinely mad. This is a very difficult situation and I am not pretending for a moment that there are a lot of things that could have been done better but some people need to either get a grip or start offering Boris departure related bets that we can take advantage of.
They are people who are incapable of admitting being wrong who said
Leave wouldn't win, Boris wouldn't win the leadership He couldn't wangle an early GE, then he wouldn't win a landslide...
They are only human, allow them to vent their pent up anger! #ventthepent
Nobody disputes his talent for sliming his way to Boris-beneficial outcomes. It's the side-effects on, say, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and the entire UK public, and so on that's the issue.
The point is so many never-wrongs DID dispute those talents, four times!
And told us to bet on their advice
The site can be not so good at telling what ought to happen, from what is likely to happen, from what it would be profitable to bet on happening.
The level of anti Boris hysteria on here is now exceeding previous peaks that were largely Brexit related. It’s genuinely mad. This is a very difficult situation and I am not pretending for a moment that there are a lot of things that could have been done better but some people need to either get a grip or start offering Boris departure related bets that we can take advantage of.
I think we need to be wary not to forgive genuinely avoidable errors and negative impacts from political decisions, but also be wary of attributing too much of the developing negative situation to specific personal attributes of individuals when the Europe wide situation, with a variety of people involved and options, is pretty damn crappy in most places. Accepting government pronouncements without question, or having no criticism at all, would surely be wrong, but leeway does need to be made (as the public, until now, largely has done).
It will take a better, more level headed person than I to come to a conclusion on that and I suspect it won't be possible until the dust has settled in 5-10 years, by which time no one will care because we'll have decided right now who we are going to blame or defend for particular matters.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
The level of anti Boris hysteria on here is now exceeding previous peaks that were largely Brexit related. It’s genuinely mad. This is a very difficult situation and I am not pretending for a moment that there are a lot of things that could have been done better but some people need to either get a grip or start offering Boris departure related bets that we can take advantage of.
They are people who are incapable of admitting being wrong who said
Leave wouldn't win, Boris wouldn't win the leadership He couldn't wangle an early GE, then he wouldn't win a landslide...
They are only human, allow them to vent their pent up anger! #ventthepent
Nobody disputes his talent for sliming his way to Boris-beneficial outcomes. It's the side-effects on, say, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and the entire UK public, and so on that's the issue.
The point is so many never-wrongs DID dispute those talents, four times!
And told us to bet on their advice
The site can be not so good at telling what ought to happen, from what is likely to happen, from what it would be profitable to bet on happening.
And therefore what is likely to happen.
Technically, more likely to happen than the likelihood implied by the odds to happen, is the gospel according to OGH.
To be fair to him, if that is allowed, no one could have known what was going to happen in 2020. Even experienced PMs have struggled and he was, still is, a novice.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
I notice the BBC had bloody Gupta on again just before Boris. I know they try to have "balance", but she is totally discredited.
There's a Dr S Gupta who comments on Covid for CNN (I think, one of the American new channels). I constantly get mental whiplash as the two Gupta's have very different views on the pandemic.
So have we been told what this amazing new evidence is which means we need to have a lockdown announced today but didn't have last week when the reported new infections were higher ?
To be fair to him, if that is allowed, no one could have known what was going to happen in 2020. Even experienced PMs have struggled and he was, still is, a novice.
"This is no time for a novice" as another PM who wasn't up to it once said.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
I wonder if they'll resume regular press conferences after this?
Allegra Stratton is urgently needed as no 10 comms is dreadful
Yet for some reason the idea of No10 hiring someone / her accepting the job got riduculed.
It *is* ridiculous. Boris is so utterly lazy (and useless and comms) he doesn’t even want to talk to the press.
No you're bullshitting.
Having a press spokesperson doesn't mean that politicians don't speak to the press anymore. Look anywhere where heads of government have press spokespersons including the UK and the USA and that is obvious. Unless you're a deliberately obtuse idiot.
"Unless you're a deliberately obtuse idiot."
Well, that's our (or rather your) Boris! AND don't think that press conferences by heads of government are totally extinct.
What the PM needs is a media-savvy professional with some real-world experience dealing with out-of-control crisis.
And have we been told how things are going worse than all projections when a month ago the Fuckwit Brothers produced a graph which showed reported infections doubling every week ?
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
I wonder if Macron has to put up with this kind of bollocks, or whether his party has a little bit more fortitude, and is a little less prone to childish bed-wetting.
To be fair to him, if that is allowed, no one could have known what was going to happen in 2020. Even experienced PMs have struggled and he was, still is, a novice.
"This is no time for a novice" as another PM who wasn't up to it once said.
We generally oscillate as to whether we decry people for lack of experience to desiring it as we want to shake things up.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
So have we been told what this amazing new evidence is which means we need to have a lockdown announced today but didn't have last week when the reported new infections were higher ?
To be fair to him, if that is allowed, no one could have known what was going to happen in 2020. Even experienced PMs have struggled and he was, still is, a novice.
Incumbent governments worldwide are at a disadvantage when it comes to re-election, with few exceptions.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
I wonder if Macron has to put up with this kind of bollocks, or whether his party has a little bit more fortitude, and is a little less prone to childish bed-wetting.
Macron can't be chucked out by his party. In fact, if they piss him off too much he can just call a parliamentary election and get rid of them all.
Why rule it out? It's just shit comms again. I have no idea why Tory members thought Johnson was this communicating genius. If he had stuck to the "national lockdown is the nuclear option and will only be used in dire emergency" line he had a couple of months ago then he would be ok.
I wonder if Macron has to put up with this kind of bollocks, or whether his party has a little bit more fortitude, and is a little less prone to childish bed-wetting.
Macron doesn’t have a party, more a personality cult. He’s a better looking version of Farage.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
Maybe you’re not running quite so many women and kids on the side? Although please correct me if I do you a justice.
Why rule it out? It's just shit comms again. I have no idea why Tory members thought Johnson was this communicating genius. If he had stuck to the "national lockdown is the nuclear option and will only be used in dire emergency" line he had a couple of months ago then he would be ok.
Boris has never been a communicating genius. He'd definitely communicated many things well to his advantage, and has been good engaging people emotionally, so he's not a universally terrible communicator, but I think everyone knows precision and consistency were not where his communication efforts were focused.
And have we been told how things are going worse than all projections when a month ago the Fuckwit Brothers produced a graph which showed reported infections doubling every week ?
Here's a theory:
A lockdown could have been announced two weeks ago but for the Fuckwit Brothers graph.
If they had used an R of 1.5 instead of 2, as some sensible people said at the time, then they could have claimed justification.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
The objection to Jehovahs Witnesses was their pacifism and Conscientious Objection to Conscription, rather than religion per se.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
All that criticism on PB of Wales looks a bit over the top now.
Just a tad, yeah. Bloody Drakeford. 2 week libertarian.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out that Drakeford's list of non-essential goods was ridiculous.
Fancy, in the middle of a pandemic, going through a long list of things like lego, stationary, broom-handles, children's pyjamas and mop-heads and deciding whether they are "essential". Would you not have thought Mark and the Welsh Government have something else more useful to do in a pandemic?
And, as you have mentioned Wales, did you miss the earlier comparison between deaths over the last 2 weeks in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and England provided by LostPassword?
It is one of the very few tables that the Welsh Government has managed to propel Wales to the very top.
Remember parts of Wales have been locked down since the beginning of September (Caerffili) -- so it is impressive to see that of the 4 nations, Wales still has the highest R number.
As you said, bloody Drakeford.
Labour are in power. Labour are in power in Wales. If they have got bright ideas on how to tackle the pandemic, it is certainly not obvious from their performance in Wales.
I don't dispute your facts, but it looks like a victory for Drakeford and a defeat for Johnson. In the same way, the non-essential selling fiasco looked like a defeat for Drakeford & Co this time last week.
Paul Davies and my friend Alun, not looking like the winners they appeared to be on Monday.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
Maybe you’re not running quite so many women and kids on the side? Although please correct me if I do you a justice.
I suppose he does have to build up the future divorce fund.
Why rule it out? It's just shit comms again. I have no idea why Tory members thought Johnson was this communicating genius. If he had stuck to the "national lockdown is the nuclear option and will only be used in dire emergency" line he had a couple of months ago then he would be ok.
They were right to rule it out, and wrong to lock down now, in my opinion.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
I wonder if Macron has to put up with this kind of bollocks, or whether his party has a little bit more fortitude, and is a little less prone to childish bed-wetting.
If only there were some solid old lags around, who had seen everything and we fazed by nothing. Ken Clarke say, or Nicholas Soames... Or people who had managed a pandemic. There was this chap called Rory Stewart, what became of him? 😉
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
That, I am afraid, is rubbish. It was very definitely to do with his atheism and his desire to impose it on China. True, he identified it with other ‘olds’ he wanted to eliminate, but while as you say that was all part of his desire to impose his ideology, atheism was part of that ideology. Anyone who thinks otherwise - like the egregious Professor Dawkins - is either unaware of the facts or isdeluding themselves.
To be fair to him, if that is allowed, no one could have known what was going to happen in 2020. Even experienced PMs have struggled and he was, still is, a novice.
He was first elected an MP in 2001 and he has angled throughput his career to reach the top which he has.
I agree no one could have foreseen a global pandemic but to call Johnson a novice is ridiculous. He might not have been PM for long but he's been in politics for most of his adult life.
I’d offer comfort if I had any to offer. The best I can manage is that you and your family are all clearly smart, hard working and well motivated people and things usually come right for them in the end. They did for me after the horror of three years unemployment after the crash.
In the meanwhile, you’ve got lots of friends and admirers including lots here on PB who are all 100% behind you and will support you. So never apologise for ranting. I know very well myself how much it helps!
Thank you and to others for your kind thoughts. Really appreciate it.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
The objection to Jehovahs Witnesses was their pacifism and Conscientious Objection to Conscription, rather than religion per se.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
Related to this of course is this conflation of the "Tier system" and the "local approach". Currently large parts of the country are in Tier 1. A substantial part is in Tier 2. A smaller bit is in Tier 3.
Johnson has just declared that this is insufficient to control the spread so everyone now has to enter the new "Tier 4". Eh? How do we know that everyone being in Tier 3 wouldn't be sufficient? There's evidence it's having some effect in the worst affected areas. So wouldn't it be effective in Tier 1 areas? Hell, Tier 2 seems to be having some positive effect in various areas.
Businesses in currently low (but growing) Tier 1 areas can reasonably argue that it is a bit much that a week ago it wasn't considered necessary to subject them to more than the lightest restrictions, and yet practically overnight, on the basis of almost no new data (nothing in the graphs wasn't available two weeks ago) they suddenly need Tier 4 or their hospitals are going to be overwhelmed? What was the basis for them being in Tier 1 in the first place if that is the case???
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Quite right. Nazis and communists persecuted Boy Scouts, Freemasons, independent trade unions, cycling clubs etc. for exactly that reason - they were independent sources of authority.
I yield to no one in my contempt for Johnson, but isn't that a bit thin? What sort of thing does he expect a PM to say, and why doesn't he quote his own prognoses on those dates?
Up to a point, she has a point, but this piece could have been run at any time since mid March. His illness and hospital treatment did raise questions about how government would function if the PM was incapable. I'm unconvinced about her point on Trump and "US politics legitimises public interest in a leader’s physical and intellectual fitness for the job." There was a degree of manufactured outrage over speculation about Corbyn having a stroke or had eye problems.
Johnson will be in trouble if enough Tory MPs stop murmuring about Boris Johnson's health in private, and go public.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
Bojo is emulating both his role models in this respect - Winston and The Donald.
Johnson claimed at the end of his speech that the measures he was announcing were not as severe as those that applied in March and April, but despite schools going back to be honest I think he's splitting hairs. This really does feel that, after 8 months in which numerous lessons should have been learnt, we're almost back to square one. What is shocking is just how quickly we have gone from one extreme to another. To those in Tier 1 areas, it must feel like they've landed on a very long snake that's taken them all the way back from square 88 to square 3.
The extreme and prolonged nature of this fresh lockdown is testament to the stubborn delay in acting earlier when weeks earlier it was apparent that all the systems and measures put in place to contain a second wave were doing anything but. It's a carbon copy of what happened in March. I may accept that this lockdown is now unavoidable, but in doing so I consider it a manifestation of utter incompetent by our elected representatives.
At the start of the week all 3 children had a job. Eldest, who has suffered from severe mental health issues and therefore has had a chequered CV, was ecstatic to find a job. He was due to start this week. As it is in retail, presumably that is at an end. I worry how he will take it.
Daughter - well you know her situation. She has been incredibly stressed and recently joined a gym to help her with that. Now she will have no work - other than a takeaway and off licence business, more worries about money and whether there is any point carrying on - and her one relaxation has also been taken away.
Youngest does have a job in the food industry. He is looking for permanent employment, doing endless assessments etc and has been very depressed about his future. 13 years of schooling, a good degree from a good university and he feels his future “fucked”.
I have been quite concerned about him and eldest so came down to London to do a bit of mothering of them both. Husband will come down when I go up so that we can keep an eye on them separately.
I may be a lawyer but I am a mother first. I will do whatever is necessary to protect my children. There has been one tragedy in the family already. We will do whatever it takes to stop there being another.
It is very very bleak. I could cry but I have to comfort my children when they do.
I know there are no easy solutions. Those who say that we are all anti-Boris hysterics or should stop bewailing every attempt to deal with this should take a pause for a moment and try and remember the very real effects of what politicians are doing to individuals and their lives, especially of the young, who are trying to build the resilience to cope with something which is making their lives a misery at a time when they should be living life to the full.
I know that there are those who have suffered pain and loss with older family members.
And what we both have is a right to expect a level of seriousness and attempts at competence in our politicians. And when we don’t get it we are entitled to make a fuss about this without being patronised by those in cushy jobs or those who don’t live here.
Sorry if that sounds a bit personal. I mean no offence. I find it very hard to see any hope for the future.
Rant over.
Don't apologise - everything is personal when its you. I hope things work out for you all.
Sorry to hear of your continuing woes @Cyclefree. Very dark days. I hope we can be of some help here on PB, even if it just as a place to let off a little steam. Feel free to rant.
As I posted the other day, we have had yet another press conference without an economist to balance the actions of the medics up.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
You'd be surprised, we paid a former senior politician decent whack to give us a Zoom chat, replete with Q&A.
Nobody needs to go away for a spot skiing or a week in the sun over Christmas...and we are still going to let everybody arrive and potter onto the Tube, have a wander around London unchecked.
TfL bail out runs out tomorrow so it's out of money unless things can quickly
I know holidays weren't specically mentioned but in the list he gave of 'reasons to leave home' work, schools, essential shopping, medical appts, there was no mention of vacations. so I would assume its off the list , but who knows, guess will have to wait for the small print
Why rule it out? It's just shit comms again. I have no idea why Tory members thought Johnson was this communicating genius. If he had stuck to the "national lockdown is the nuclear option and will only be used in dire emergency" line he had a couple of months ago then he would be ok.
It is one of the areas where Sturgeon has clearly had the edge. Don't rule it out no matter how unpalatable, because you might need to double back on it.
Sturgeon has by no means done a brilliant job on this but on that aspect she has been crystal clear from the beginning.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
You'd be surprised, we paid a former senior politician decent whack to give us a Zoom chat, replete with Q&A.
Your firm must be doing well to be pissing money up the wall like that.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
Charles has yet to see an example of Republican sponsored voter disenfranchisement that he doesn't approve of.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
How Morning Cloud was financed, is not the least interesting question about 20th century political history.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Quite right. Nazis and communists persecuted Boy Scouts, Freemasons, independent trade unions, cycling clubs etc. for exactly that reason - they were independent sources of authority.
There was a group of young people in Nazi Germany called the Edelweiss Pirates, who used to go around wearing camp, tight leather shorts and beating up the Hitler Youth. Not enough is made of them.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Quite right. Nazis and communists persecuted Boy Scouts, Freemasons, independent trade unions, cycling clubs etc. for exactly that reason - they were independent sources of authority.
Which is why even secularism, while I think it is the tops, is not immune from bad actions, as whatever the purported motivations or stated goals of a despotic regime, they will act like despots. Some motivations may lend themselves to certain actions more easily though.
The infuriating thing about both this response and the March response was just how bloody similar it is.
Despite plenty of warning the government decided to do nothing substantial and try and pretend things were okay.
The "rush for normality" in Summer will be a key thing to focus on for the Truth and Reconciliation commission.
I'm going to be very, very interested to see how Sturgeon plays this now. She clearly wanted another lockdown but without the financial support of the UK government it wasn't viable.
I wonder if they would extended the furlough program to Scotland if she asked to be included in the four-week lockdown? I suppose the difficult bit would be winding it down on the other side.
everything he talked about is already in place in majority of Scotland and they have already refused to give Scotland extended furlough, amazing once it is England that money is no object.
The Scottish government has a budget and is entitled to spend it as it sees fit.
The U.K. government has a great ability to borrow which is what it is doing now to fund its spending choices
The U.K., however, has no obligation to fund additional spending decisions by the Scottish government
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
You'd be surprised, we paid a former senior politician decent whack to give us a Zoom chat, replete with Q&A.
Your firm must be doing well to be pissing money up the wall like that.
Covid-19 has brought great efficiencies to the business.
Also helping on buying/selling government debt has also been busier since Covid-19 struck.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
Charles has yet to see an example of Republican sponsored voter disenfranchisement that he doesn't approve of.
Or any proposal to change institutions which is not an outrage, even if it is within the powers of the constitution or to be done via an entirely lawful amendment.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
The objection to Jehovahs Witnesses was their pacifism and Conscientious Objection to Conscription, rather than religion per se.
Although that stemmed from their religion.
Of course, but it was their pacifist version of Christianity that was the problem, rather than religion per se.
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Quite right. Nazis and communists persecuted Boy Scouts, Freemasons, independent trade unions, cycling clubs etc. for exactly that reason - they were independent sources of authority.
There was a group of young people in Nazi Germany called the Edelweiss Pirates, who used to go around wearing camp, tight leather shorts and beating up the Hitler Youth. Not enough is made of them.
The daft thing is, most of these organisations were filled with people who were sympathetic to the government. and could have been steered in a. pro-government direction, had the authorities been more subtle.
To be fair, I think there is a possibility that he might have been misinterpreted there, and might have been alluding to the SCOTUS allowing votes postmarked election day. ie. it was actually a sarcastic criticism of SCOTUS recent decisions...
Reminds me of a row between Richard Dawkins and the American right wing talk show host.. cant remember his name, but he argued that Hitler and Stalin were Atheists and that killed millions
Dawkins argued the opposite.
Both were wrong.
Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian. Nor, with rare exceptions, were his motives religious (Jehovah’s Witnesses being the main exception I can think of).
But Stalin definitely did kill thousands if not millions in a bid to impose atheism, as did Lenin.
And Pol Pot. A crazed atheist. Absolutely loathed religion. Had monks thrown off cliffs and temples burned to dust.
And Mao, of course.
It was nothing to do with the promotion of atheism. Totalitarian states, whether Fascist, Communist or Theocratic, cannot tolerate alternative sources of authority to The Party or The True Religion.
Quite right. Nazis and communists persecuted Boy Scouts, Freemasons, independent trade unions, cycling clubs etc. for exactly that reason - they were independent sources of authority.
There was a group of young people in Nazi Germany called the Edelweiss Pirates, who used to go around wearing camp, tight leather shorts and beating up the Hitler Youth. Not enough is made of them.
The Republicans have only a 5% advantage in MT, and high turnout favours the Dems. Biden worth a nibble here at 9.2 at BFx IMO.
Perhaps more significant is Montana’s single House seat, which is looking a tad shaky. If the GOP lose it, and don’t pick up any seats elsewhere that might give them the majority of a state’s House seats that they don’t already have, then in the new House neither party will control a majority of state delegations. That means should the Electoral College tie 269-269, the new House would be deadlocked and unable to conduct a contingent election of the President. Unless somebody crosses party lines.
Anyway, the Georgia Dream Party of Giorgi Gakharia which had 89 seats in the 150-seat Parliament looks set to retain power. Exit polls have the Party at 46-52% of the vote.
As we know, Georgia Dream was founded by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvilli in 2012. While there's the main party, it has other parties in a bloc which had 115 seats in the outgoing Parliament.
Why rule it out? It's just shit comms again. I have no idea why Tory members thought Johnson was this communicating genius. If he had stuck to the "national lockdown is the nuclear option and will only be used in dire emergency" line he had a couple of months ago then he would be ok.
It is one of the areas where Sturgeon has clearly had the edge. Don't rule it out no matter how unpalatable, because you might need to double back on it.
Sturgeon has by no means done a brilliant job on this but on that aspect she has been crystal clear from the beginning.
Comments
Gone by the locals says Tim Montegomery.
It will take a better, more level headed person than I to come to a conclusion on that and I suspect it won't be possible until the dust has settled in 5-10 years, by which time no one will care because we'll have decided right now who we are going to blame or defend for particular matters.
Not that my own economic prospects are looking too hot right now.
Well, that's our (or rather your) Boris! AND don't think that press conferences by heads of government are totally extinct.
What the PM needs is a media-savvy professional with some real-world experience dealing with out-of-control crisis.
Like Sean Spicer or Anthony Scaramucci?
Dear X
As you will doubtless have foreseen...
I wonder if Macron has to put up with this kind of bollocks, or whether his party has a little bit more fortitude, and is a little less prone to childish bed-wetting.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
Boris
Borat
Coincidence? I don’t think so. Only sensible explanation.
A lockdown could have been announced two weeks ago but for the Fuckwit Brothers graph.
If they had used an R of 1.5 instead of 2, as some sensible people said at the time, then they could have claimed justification.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Rancid.
Paul Davies and my friend Alun, not looking like the winners they appeared to be on Monday.
I agree no one could have foreseen a global pandemic but to call Johnson a novice is ridiculous. He might not have been PM for long but he's been in politics for most of his adult life.
Johnson has just declared that this is insufficient to control the spread so everyone now has to enter the new "Tier 4". Eh? How do we know that everyone being in Tier 3 wouldn't be sufficient? There's evidence it's having some effect in the worst affected areas. So wouldn't it be effective in Tier 1 areas? Hell, Tier 2 seems to be having some positive effect in various areas.
Businesses in currently low (but growing) Tier 1 areas can reasonably argue that it is a bit much that a week ago it wasn't considered necessary to subject them to more than the lightest restrictions, and yet practically overnight, on the basis of almost no new data (nothing in the graphs wasn't available two weeks ago) they suddenly need Tier 4 or their hospitals are going to be overwhelmed? What was the basis for them being in Tier 1 in the first place if that is the case???
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/31/for-the-health-of-the-nation-shouldnt-johnsons-medical-fitness-for-office-be-scrutinised
Up to a point, she has a point, but this piece could have been run at any time since mid March. His illness and hospital treatment did raise questions about how government would function if the PM was incapable. I'm unconvinced about her point on Trump and "US politics legitimises public interest in a leader’s physical and intellectual fitness for the job." There was a degree of manufactured outrage over speculation about Corbyn having a stroke or had eye problems.
Johnson will be in trouble if enough Tory MPs stop murmuring about Boris Johnson's health in private, and go public.
They are predicted to win 52 seats in the 93-seat State legislature (+4) with the LNP on 34 (-4).
Both Labor and LNP increased vote share as One Nation lost half their vote. The swing from LNP to Labor is about 1.5%.
The extreme and prolonged nature of this fresh lockdown is testament to the stubborn delay in acting earlier when weeks earlier it was apparent that all the systems and measures put in place to contain a second wave were doing anything but. It's a carbon copy of what happened in March. I may accept that this lockdown is now unavoidable, but in doing so I consider it a manifestation of utter incompetent by our elected representatives.
As I posted the other day, we have had yet another press conference without an economist to balance the actions of the medics up.
Sturgeon has by no means done a brilliant job on this but on that aspect she has been crystal clear from the beginning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelweiss_Pirates
The U.K. government has a great ability to borrow which is what it is doing now to fund its spending choices
The U.K., however, has no obligation to fund additional spending decisions by the Scottish government
Also helping on buying/selling government debt has also been busier since Covid-19 struck.
Roving Dudes of Essen sound like my kinda people.
Not THAT Georgia, the country. Capital Tbilisi.
Anyway, the Georgia Dream Party of Giorgi Gakharia which had 89 seats in the 150-seat Parliament looks set to retain power. Exit polls have the Party at 46-52% of the vote.
As we know, Georgia Dream was founded by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvilli in 2012. While there's the main party, it has other parties in a bloc which had 115 seats in the outgoing Parliament.