Liverpool's mass testing programme reached 90,000 people in its first week, the city's mayor has told BBC Breakfast. That equates to 18% of the population of just under half a million being tested since last Friday, when Liverpool began offering tests to everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms.
That seems a very low amount....too low to really work.
It needs door knocking to work. The tests have to go to the people, not the other way around.
And has a specificity of 99.6% according to reports.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
That advantage being.. what? Denying care for people with pre-existing conditions? What's your aim?
One of the attractions for the UK for many EU citizens is its social security and health systems do not require contributions nor do you have to present ID to access services (another attraction is apparently the quality of the primary schools compared with home countries). Full free movement would exacerbate this.
Can you explain how your system, whatever it looks like, copes with a baby, found in a box, with hypothermia? Let's say for sake of argument the baby refuses to show its driver's licence and hasn't paid tax in the past financial year.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
No, the issue is that they're being subsidised by no one and we have a crap health service because of that. Basically everyone I know has got Babylon, Exeter and BUPA/Vitality either privately or through their workplace because the NHS is slow and unable to provide even the most basic services now.
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.
Well you shouldn't vote for a party that prioritises keeping taxes low over properly funding public services in that case. I refused my work's private health insurance because I think if the NHS isn't good enough for the well off then the NHS isn't good enough for anyone and the solution is to fund it properly not walk away from it. Although it was tough because I agree with you that the NHS is being run into the ground by the current government. It's impossible to get a GP appointment where we live now.
Ireland footballer Alan Browne had coronavirus while playing 90 minutes against England last night. Browne is the second Ireland player to give a positive result in the past week.
Football really has f##ked up their response to COVID.
The London boss of Russian airline Aeroflot has been arrested on suspicion of high treason after allegedly handing over state secrets to British intelligence.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
No, the issue is that they're being subsidised by no one and we have a crap health service because of that. Basically everyone I know has got Babylon, Exeter and BUPA/Vitality either privately or through their workplace because the NHS is slow and unable to provide even the most basic services now.
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.
Well you shouldn't vote for a party that prioritises keeping taxes low over properly funding public services in that case. I refused my work's private health insurance because I think if the NHS isn't good enough for the well off then the NHS isn't good enough for anyone and the solution is to fund it properly not walk away from it. Although it was tough because I agree with you that the NHS is being run into the ground by the current government. It's impossible to get a GP appointment where we live now.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
That advantage being.. what? Denying care for people with pre-existing conditions? What's your aim?
One of the attractions for the UK for many EU citizens is its social security and health systems do not require contributions nor do you have to present ID to access services (another attraction is apparently the quality of the primary schools compared with home countries). Full free movement would exacerbate this.
Can you explain how your system, whatever it looks like, copes with a baby, found in a box, with hypothermia? Let's say for sake of argument the baby refuses to show its driver's licence and hasn't paid tax in the past financial year.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Dido of Carnage?
I'm obviously not saying that incompetent and/or corrupt women do not exist.
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
Winnie Mandela? You are so doing the mirror image of what you think other people should not be doing.
That's another bad un of the female gender. We could list more. Of course we could. It's a big old world with lots of women in it. But it will take a little more than pointing to the obvious fact that there are malign women to knock me off something I believe strongly and have given much thought to.
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Will Gompertz described the performance as mannered bordering on unwatchable!
I suspect she's playing "Thatcher the myth" rather than "Thatcher the person" - which is fair enough, as its a drama, not a documentary, and the myth is always more interesting.
It will be interesting to see if she's got the deportment right (a cross between a waddle and tottering forward).
Coleman is hopeless in that deportment department as the queen - as she herself acknowledges she "walks like a farmer".
I bet Farage cannnot believe his luck this morning...
Yep, the way his intervention in the closing stages of the US election swung it for Trump was a political masterstroke. He's still got all the old magic, and no mistake...
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
No, the issue is that they're being subsidised by no one and we have a crap health service because of that. Basically everyone I know has got Babylon, Exeter and BUPA/Vitality either privately or through their workplace because the NHS is slow and unable to provide even the most basic services now.
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.
Well you shouldn't vote for a party that prioritises keeping taxes low over properly funding public services in that case. I refused my work's private health insurance because I think if the NHS isn't good enough for the well off then the NHS isn't good enough for anyone and the solution is to fund it properly not walk away from it. Although it was tough because I agree with you that the NHS is being run into the ground by the current government. It's impossible to get a GP appointment where we live now.
Every party promises the earth and low taxes. Labour did it in 1997 as well, Corbyn just did it by saying no tax rises for anyone under £80k despite promising an extra £200bn per year in additional spending.
I may as well vote for competence, though I don't think anyone offers that at the moment. As I said a few weeks ago, moving the Switzerland and taking up my citizenship there (by marriage) is definitely an option for me.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
Did all the dead break heavily for Biden too?
Probably - unless they died in a lunatic asylum.
"WASHINGTON — Hours after President Trump repeated a baseless report that a voting machine system “deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide,” he was directly contradicted by a group of federal, state and local election officials, who issued a statement on Thursday declaring flatly that the election “was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised."
NYTimes
The sting in the tail of that piece of news, as reported by the BBC, is that the head of that group - the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency - is expected (by Reuters) to be fired. The assistant director resigned yesterday after the White House asked him to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54926084
The vaunted "checks and balances" of the US constitution don't seem effective against the current level of megalomania.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
No, the issue is that they're being subsidised by no one and we have a crap health service because of that. Basically everyone I know has got Babylon, Exeter and BUPA/Vitality either privately or through their workplace because the NHS is slow and unable to provide even the most basic services now.
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.
Well you shouldn't vote for a party that prioritises keeping taxes low over properly funding public services in that case. I refused my work's private health insurance because I think if the NHS isn't good enough for the well off then the NHS isn't good enough for anyone and the solution is to fund it properly not walk away from it. Although it was tough because I agree with you that the NHS is being run into the ground by the current government. It's impossible to get a GP appointment where we live now.
You live in Wales then?
You are demonstrating a shameful lack of knowledge of the work of Carter USM if you don't know where I live!
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You can jump in at any point, but I'd recommend watching from the start, you'll miss Claire Foy's and Matt Smith's brilliant portrayals.
Plus the very first episode has the best scene IMHO, when Churchill arrives at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth whilst 'I vow to thee my country' is being sung.
Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I had been looking for more longish-term pandemic viewing, so will put this near the top of my list.
I was impressed by Claire Foy as Little Dorrit and Anne Boleyn.
Just to be contrary I couldn't get through the first series. There were some decent early moments but it was pretty boring and Prince Phillip was such a whinger. And me, a monarchist.
A mutated version of the coronavirus, dubbed D614G, is found in 85 per cent of global cases and researchers believe this version is so common because its genetic modification makes it more infectious and better at spreading.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
Well of course not. The difference between funding by compulsory health insurance automatically deducted from your wages and funding from general taxation isn't really that great.
The German system actually has a few problems, but the biggest difference in how health works is that it is much more decentralised here, eg with responsibility lying with the health ministries of the Bundesländer,and local Amts. It's also a bit better funded - which is the other big difference.
Totally changing the funding method is just pointless disruption.
So how are those who have not contributed treated?
I bet Farage cannnot believe his luck this morning...
Yep, the way his intervention in the closing stages of the US election swung it for Trump was a political masterstroke. He's still got all the old magic, and no mistake...
True he doesn't have the street fighting smarts and the popular working class appeal of Prime Minister Carrie.....
I admire her route to power and I'm sure many will
All those freezing mornings canvassing on the doorsteps of council estates...while others were courting powerful wealthy conservatives
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
It may well be a profitable thing for companies but if it leads to higher unemployment that comes with social costs and obviously a robot tax will have to be imposed on them to pay for the increased welfare costs of increased automation and use of robots.
Corporation tax however should not be increased unfairly on companies who increase profitability without replacing workers with robots
Not that they ever would, of course. You don't need to know anything about pandemic economics to know that doing things exactly as normal in a non-pandemic situation is obviously the common-sense thing to do (NB "common sense": the accumulation of years of experience and knee-jerk reaction based on a completely different and non-pandemic situation). And that locking down is a stupidly wrong as, well, putting a cast on a broken leg and staying off of it. Or finishing a course of antibiotics when you feel better. These experts know nothing...
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
UK spending per capita per year (2017): £2,989 Swiss spending per capita per year (2017): £5,417 (ppp)
I actually have no problem with that, but also don't forget that Switzerland has almost the GDP per capita as the UK so proportionally the spend isn't that different.
Almost twice (2019, UK: $82,993, Switz $42,300) according to the World Bank. I think that's what you meant.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
I totally agree, how poor of the political journalism in this country to say this weeks heat has been personality driven, when it’s clearly been a brexit bust up.
Except that pazrt of the root of it is Mr Johnson's personal life. But you have a good point to consider.
It was HY who called it, and he is an insider and the one poster with his finger on the pulse of the conservative party right now; he said there is a fork in the road depending on who wins the US election. He even detailed exactly what that meant to the negotiation. It’s not a throw away chip wrapper post from HY, there are some in number 10, the government, the back benches, the whole party the whole country who could become unhappy with a fork in a road not going their way.
A mutated version of the coronavirus, dubbed D614G, is found in 85 per cent of global cases and researchers believe this version is so common because its genetic modification makes it more infectious and better at spreading.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
UK spending per capita per year (2017): £2,989 Swiss spending per capita per year (2017): £5,417 (ppp)
I actually have no problem with that, but also don't forget that Switzerland has almost the GDP per capita as the UK so proportionally the spend isn't that different.
Almost twice (2019, UK: $82,993, Switz $42,300) according to the World Bank.
Yes I meant to say almost twice, your numbers are swapped around, I wish the UK had GDP per capita of $83k!
A mutated version of the coronavirus, dubbed D614G, is found in 85 per cent of global cases and researchers believe this version is so common because its genetic modification makes it more infectious and better at spreading.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
And in fact there is evidence that the gain in infectiousness came at the cost of higher vulnerability to neutralising antibodies. So the prevalence of this strain may make the virus easier to eradicate: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20159905v2
A mutated version of the coronavirus, dubbed D614G, is found in 85 per cent of global cases and researchers believe this version is so common because its genetic modification makes it more infectious and better at spreading.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
The Daily Mail's medical advice is as useful as the Daily Expresses on the US election
You are massively out of touch, as always Rog. In terms of COVID, the Mail have actually been doing a fairly good job of at least highlighting new research papers that are appearing on the academic preprint services. They aren't providing "advice", its awareness of the current state of the art in research and as I say not doing a bad job, in fact a lot better than most newspapers.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
And why would we not want to turn jobs over to robots? Things that can be automated tend to be the deadly boring jobs that everyone hates. First they complained about the dangerous jobs, then about losing those jobs. Then they complained about the soulless boring jobs. Then they complained about possibly losing them.
Sure, there'll be some dislocation. But the focus should be on creating new, more productive and more fulfilling jobs and managing the transition to these so as to reduce the pain of the dislocation, rather than on preventing the removal of dangerous and soul-destroying jobs.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Dido of Carnage?
I'm obviously not saying that incompetent and/or corrupt women do not exist.
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
Winnie Mandela? You are so doing the mirror image of what you think other people should not be doing.
That's another bad un of the female gender. We could list more. Of course we could. It's a big old world with lots of women in it. But it will take a little more than pointing to the obvious fact that there are malign women to knock me off something I believe strongly and have given much thought to.
It's not your overall position I object to, it's the underpinning of the supporting arguments. Winnie Mandela's existence cancels out Roberta Mugabe's lack of same.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
Exactly so. Very astute post.
Johnson has not delivered Brexit to us. Brexit has delivered us to Johnson. This act of monumental stupidity and self harm was merely grist to the mill of the Boris Johnson Project. A project that by its own terms of reference - the personal gratification of the eponymous entitled chancer - has been and continues to be enormously successful.
Again shows that the best way to analyse populist politics is through the brain chemistry of the players rather than anything elevated or academic.
I bet Farage cannnot believe his luck this morning...
Yep, the way his intervention in the closing stages of the US election swung it for Trump was a political masterstroke. He's still got all the old magic, and no mistake...
Yes, and Farage will need to do some grifting to recoup the £10K he lost betting on a Trump win. Maybe somebody here could set up a Go Fund Me or Just Giving page to help him out?
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
I totally agree, how poor of the political journalism in this country to say this weeks heat has been personality driven, when it’s clearly been a brexit bust up.
Except that pazrt of the root of it is Mr Johnson's personal life. But you have a good point to consider.
It was HY who called it, and he is an insider and the one poster with his finger on the pulse of the conservative party right now; he said there is a fork in the road depending on who wins the US election. He even detailed exactly what that meant to the negotiation. It’s not a throw away chip wrapper post from HY, there are some in number 10, the government, the back benches, the whole party the whole country who could become unhappy with a fork in a road not going their way.
Hmm . Quite so re the US election. On the other hand, I now find the Staggers' Stephen Bush's email to subscribers this morning reckons that the depaerture of the Vote Leave folk makes little difference:
" ... Cummings' own combative style did more to damage any prospect he could be part of a radical government. A majority of 86 was being worn away by a culture of pointless and destructive rudeness towards MPs, which meant the prospect of any serious legislation passing much smaller than it needed to be. A reset in terms of tone and approach towards Conservative MPs means that the government may become more radical, and more Conservative, than it could have been, even as it talks in a warmer tone and makes strides forward on climate change."
I bet Farage cannnot believe his luck this morning...
Yep, the way his intervention in the closing stages of the US election swung it for Trump was a political masterstroke. He's still got all the old magic, and no mistake...
Yes, and Farage will need to do some grifting to recoup the £10K he lost betting on a Trump win. Maybe somebody here could set up a Go Fund Me or Just Giving page to help him out?
If I understand that, he won 10k from Paul Staines on a former bet on a previous General Election, so he's back to zero and has 1% interest for about 4 years on £10k left.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
And why would we not want to turn jobs over to robots? Things that can be automated tend to be the deadly boring jobs that everyone hates. First they complained about the dangerous jobs, then about losing those jobs. Then they complained about the soulless boring jobs. Then they complained about possibly losing them.
Sure, there'll be some dislocation. But the focus should be on creating new, more productive and more fulfilling jobs and managing the transition to these so as to reduce the pain of the dislocation, rather than on preventing the removal of dangerous and soul-destroying jobs.
Remember half the population have an IQ below 100, not everyone can do highly creative, knowledge based jobs, so if all the routine, full time jobs are automated we will face higher unemployment and higher welfare bills as a result
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
It may well be a profitable thing for companies but if it leads to higher unemployment that comes with social costs and obviously a robot tax will have to be imposed on them to pay for the increased welfare costs of increased automation and use of robots.
Corporation tax however should not be increased unfairly on companies who increase profitability without replacing workers with robots
You state the orthodox Marxist-Leninist position with admirable clarity. I am just mildly surprised to hear it coming from you.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
And why would we not want to turn jobs over to robots? Things that can be automated tend to be the deadly boring jobs that everyone hates. First they complained about the dangerous jobs, then about losing those jobs. Then they complained about the soulless boring jobs. Then they complained about possibly losing them.
Sure, there'll be some dislocation. But the focus should be on creating new, more productive and more fulfilling jobs and managing the transition to these so as to reduce the pain of the dislocation, rather than on preventing the removal of dangerous and soul-destroying jobs.
There comes a point when machines are capable of doing almost every job in the economy. What happens to work at that point? Business as usual will not be an option, but there are many possible futures in place of it. It's probably sensible to start thinking about it in terms other than "some dislocation" and more "everything we thought we knew is history".
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
UK spending per capita per year (2017): £2,989 Swiss spending per capita per year (2017): £5,417 (ppp)
I actually have no problem with that, but also don't forget that Switzerland has almost the GDP per capita as the UK so proportionally the spend isn't that different.
Almost twice (2019, UK: $82,993, Switz $42,300) according to the World Bank. I think that's what you meant.
Doh! Wrong way round. 2019, UK: $42,300, Switz $82,993.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
It may well be a profitable thing for companies but if it leads to higher unemployment that comes with social costs and obviously a robot tax will have to be imposed on them to pay for the increased welfare costs of increased automation and use of robots.
Corporation tax however should not be increased unfairly on companies who increase profitability without replacing workers with robots
You state the orthodox Marxist-Leninist position with admirable clarity. I am just mildly surprised to hear it coming from you.
It is not Marxist, I am not advocating state ownership of all industry, however I am also not a pure free trader either, especially if the cost is rising unemployment
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
Did all the dead break heavily for Biden too?
Probably - unless they died in a lunatic asylum.
"WASHINGTON — Hours after President Trump repeated a baseless report that a voting machine system “deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide,” he was directly contradicted by a group of federal, state and local election officials, who issued a statement on Thursday declaring flatly that the election “was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised."
NYTimes
The sting in the tail of that piece of news, as reported by the BBC, is that the head of that group - the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency - is expected (by Reuters) to be fired. The assistant director resigned yesterday after the White House asked him to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54926084
The vaunted "checks and balances" of the US constitution don't seem effective against the current level of megalomania.
Yes, this almost seems to have slipped past unnoticed.
Something Gove and Cummings pushed for years ago....it is the single biggest thing that could be done to level the playing field.
Just hope no-one mucks about with it for 2021 entry. Younger Grandson is wrestling with his options at the moment. Three of his choices are well away from home, which in my experience was a Good Idea.
As long as you don't have to end up driving multiple 500 mile rescue missions.
Unlike many on here I have a lot of time for Cummings. He is an iconoclast, and lordy do we need some of them. The smug, self-satisfied blob that runs our institutions, government and society seriously need a good kicking. And then some more kicking.
But a government cannot run as a permanent revolution. Eventually a modus operandi needs to be reached with the establishment and some compromises need to be made. I think Cummings saw this himself in his January blog. And he was right. As usual.
You’re not the only one, even if it’s an unpopular opinion here and elsewhere - where people benefit from the status quo.
It's a scale not a binary approach of eith being complacent or a needlessly disruptive arrogant arse.
It's about what it achieves not seeing the disruption as the achievement.
Anyway, continuing the look at the projection of death rates, with the updated ONS survey numbers, here it is:
As before - red are actual deaths recorded (up to one week ago; the last few days of these do sometimes increase even after that cutoff date), transparent yellow are projections of 0.85% IFR from the ONS survey (lagged 19 days) and the transparent blue bars are projections of 26.5% mortality from hospitalisations (lagged 10 days).
NB - England figures for the source of infections and hospitalisations (because Wales mucks things up by having different hospitalisation admission criteria recorded) multiplied by 1.2. Actual nationwide figures for deaths.
As a bonus chart, the approximate IFR since the start of the second wave is below (deaths lagged by 19 days from infection; infections taken from latest ONS survey; England only). It's noticeable that the early IFR was lower, reflecting younger infections; this moved up as the infections spread through the age bands. It does seem to be coming down a little recently, but possibly not all deaths have been recorded or it could be random variation. Blue bars are the day-to-day IFR; orange line is the 7-day average).
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Dido of Carnage?
I'm obviously not saying that incompetent and/or corrupt women do not exist.
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
Winnie Mandela? You are so doing the mirror image of what you think other people should not be doing.
That's another bad un of the female gender. We could list more. Of course we could. It's a big old world with lots of women in it. But it will take a little more than pointing to the obvious fact that there are malign women to knock me off something I believe strongly and have given much thought to.
It's not your overall position I object to, it's the underpinning of the supporting arguments. Winnie Mandela's existence cancels out Roberta Mugabe's lack of same.
Yes, alright. "Donna Trump" etc was a bit gratuitous. We don't need to mention individuals. I'm talking about certain personality traits that are more likely to be found in men than women which when present in leaders often lead to toxic outcomes for those being led.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Rishi would of course be the first Wykehamist PM though there have been 6 Chancellors from the school and one leader of the opposition, Gaitskill
Alas, it seems Henry Addington lived in vain.
He did go there briefly as well as Reading School, you are right
The advice he wrote to his adolescent son during his Premiership includes a fairly hilarious attempt at inclusivity, or at least what passed for it in 1803:
'... but avoid exclusive connections, and never allow yourself to prefer the society of Wykehamists to that of persons, equally deserving, who were bred at Eton or Westminster.'
Haven't we had this story about Cummings leaving the Number Ten team before, several times?
It's become one of those staple newspaper stories, like the Blair/Brown feud ones that were printed every Sunday in the Before Times, or the "worst week yet for this government" that have had to be lain aside now that it's too depressing because the consequences of government dysfunction have become too great.
I'm sure we have several more iterations of this story to come.
Yeah Biden massively outperformed his party due, I guess, to his amazing personal qualities and matchless record in government.
What an asset. What a candidate. Why didn;t he get the job sooner?
He was up against better candidates. And the opposing candidate matters when outperforming party. And just because you think something looks weird doesn't mean its is.
And UBI funded by a robot tax becomes more likely therefore
What's with the hypothecation? If robotization is a profitable thing for companies to do why not let them just do it, and reap the benefits via general corporation tax, rather than invent a new tax tending to discourage it?
And why would we not want to turn jobs over to robots? Things that can be automated tend to be the deadly boring jobs that everyone hates. First they complained about the dangerous jobs, then about losing those jobs. Then they complained about the soulless boring jobs. Then they complained about possibly losing them.
Sure, there'll be some dislocation. But the focus should be on creating new, more productive and more fulfilling jobs and managing the transition to these so as to reduce the pain of the dislocation, rather than on preventing the removal of dangerous and soul-destroying jobs.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
Rishi would of course be the first Wykehamist PM though there have been 6 Chancellors from the school and one leader of the opposition, Gaitskill
Alas, it seems Henry Addington lived in vain.
He did go there briefly as well as Reading School, you are right
The advice he wrote to his adolescent son during his Premiership includes a fairly hilarious attempt at inclusivity, or at least what passed for it in 1803:
'... but avoid exclusive connections, and never allow yourself to prefer the society of Wykehamists to that of persons, equally deserving, who were bred at Eton or Westminster.'
LOL, And he went to Brasenose too, just like Cameron.
A mutated version of the coronavirus, dubbed D614G, is found in 85 per cent of global cases and researchers believe this version is so common because its genetic modification makes it more infectious and better at spreading.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
The Daily Mail's medical advice is as useful as the Daily Expresses on the US election
You are massively out of touch, as always Rog. In terms of COVID, the Mail have actually been doing a fairly good job of at least highlighting new research papers that are appearing on the academic preprint services. They aren't providing "advice", its awareness of the current state of the art in research and as I say not doing a bad job, in fact a lot better than most newspapers.
But you just carry on being ignorant.
If he gets any thicker he'll have to move to Hartlepool!
Rishi would of course be the first Wykehamist PM though there have been 6 Chancellors from the school and one leader of the opposition, Gaitskill
Depressing that we still have to keep score of old school ties in this day and age.
No different to keeping track of Oxbridge college attended, of our postwar PMs 8 went to private schools, 11 went to Oxford
Of course, it's very different. But it doesn't surprise me at all that you think otherwise.
In fact if I ever agreed with you about anything, I would want to go back and check my reasoning severely.
It isn't, most public schools have scholarships now and of course from 1964 to 1997 every PM went to a state grammar school, we have yet to have a PM solely educated at a comprehensive yet, though May partly attended a private school then a grammar which became a comp before she left.
Indeed Hague and Ed Miliband are the only leaders of the opposition educated at comprehensives too
Rishi would of course be the first Wykehamist PM though there have been 6 Chancellors from the school and one leader of the opposition, Gaitskill
Alas, it seems Henry Addington lived in vain.
He did go there briefly as well as Reading School, you are right
The advice he wrote to his adolescent son during his Premiership includes a fairly hilarious attempt at inclusivity, or at least what passed for it in 1803:
'... but avoid exclusive connections, and never allow yourself to prefer the society of Wykehamists to that of persons, equally deserving, who were bred at Eton or Westminster.'
Eton or Westminster ofcourse being the only 'in' institutions of the time. If the nineteenth century had belonged to Westminster instead of Eton, the country - and in deed the whole Empire - would have been a lot more Liberal and Whiggish - that was its appeal of the time, with seven Whig and Liberal prime ministers. However, the Victorian squalor of London soon overtook it, it became less popular with the aristocracy, and the country moved to a more rural-conservative locus of educational influence than the original metropolitan Liberals.
ONS data actually looks fairly positive. What we're seeing might actually be the testing system picking up a higher proportion of positive cases because the survey data still points at a reduction in cases in quite a few parts of the country.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54902518
https://www.tatler.com/article/spectator-magazine-social-web-links-to-tory-cabinet
So, in short a coward.
Pathetic.
I refused my work's private health insurance because I think if the NHS isn't good enough for the well off then the NHS isn't good enough for anyone and the solution is to fund it properly not walk away from it. Although it was tough because I agree with you that the NHS is being run into the ground by the current government. It's impossible to get a GP appointment where we live now.
Football really has f##ked up their response to COVID.
Bozo at least has some understanding of politics
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8945365/Aeroflots-boss-London-arrested-accused-high-treason-spying-Britain.html
I may as well vote for competence, though I don't think anyone offers that at the moment. As I said a few weeks ago, moving the Switzerland and taking up my citizenship there (by marriage) is definitely an option for me.
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1327220601640132608?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54926084
The vaunted "checks and balances" of the US constitution don't seem effective against the current level of megalomania.
However, analysis from experts at the University of North Carolina found the change did not make it more deadly or likely to cause severe symptoms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8945641/D614G-strain-coronavirus-better-infecting-human-cells-original-version.html
I admire her route to power and I'm sure many will
All those freezing mornings canvassing on the doorsteps of council estates...while others were courting powerful wealthy conservatives
Corporation tax however should not be increased unfairly on companies who increase profitability without replacing workers with robots
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pandemic-Information-Economics-COVID-19-Thinking/dp/0262539128/
Not that they ever would, of course. You don't need to know anything about pandemic economics to know that doing things exactly as normal in a non-pandemic situation is obviously the common-sense thing to do (NB "common sense": the accumulation of years of experience and knee-jerk reaction based on a completely different and non-pandemic situation). And that locking down is a stupidly wrong as, well, putting a cast on a broken leg and staying off of it. Or finishing a course of antibiotics when you feel better. These experts know nothing...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20159905v2
But you just carry on being ignorant.
Sure, there'll be some dislocation. But the focus should be on creating new, more productive and more fulfilling jobs and managing the transition to these so as to reduce the pain of the dislocation, rather than on preventing the removal of dangerous and soul-destroying jobs.
Johnson has not delivered Brexit to us. Brexit has delivered us to Johnson. This act of monumental stupidity and self harm was merely grist to the mill of the Boris Johnson Project. A project that by its own terms of reference - the personal gratification of the eponymous entitled chancer - has been and continues to be enormously successful.
Again shows that the best way to analyse populist politics is through the brain chemistry of the players rather than anything elevated or academic.
" ... Cummings' own combative style did more to damage any prospect he could be part of a radical government. A majority of 86 was being worn away by a culture of pointless and destructive rudeness towards MPs, which meant the prospect of any serious legislation passing much smaller than it needed to be. A reset in terms of tone and approach towards Conservative MPs means that the government may become more radical, and more Conservative, than it could have been, even as it talks in a warmer tone and makes strides forward on climate change."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-defeated-trump-democrats-didn-t-win-mandate-they-ignore-ncna1247620
Edit * = i.e. I agree with it
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
Johnson will be well rid.
What an asset. What a candidate. Why didn;t he get the job sooner?
It's about what it achieves not seeing the disruption as the achievement.
As before - red are actual deaths recorded (up to one week ago; the last few days of these do sometimes increase even after that cutoff date), transparent yellow are projections of 0.85% IFR from the ONS survey (lagged 19 days) and the transparent blue bars are projections of 26.5% mortality from hospitalisations (lagged 10 days).
NB - England figures for the source of infections and hospitalisations (because Wales mucks things up by having different hospitalisation admission criteria recorded) multiplied by 1.2. Actual nationwide figures for deaths.
As a bonus chart, the approximate IFR since the start of the second wave is below (deaths lagged by 19 days from infection; infections taken from latest ONS survey; England only). It's noticeable that the early IFR was lower, reflecting younger infections; this moved up as the infections spread through the age bands. It does seem to be coming down a little recently, but possibly not all deaths have been recorded or it could be random variation. Blue bars are the day-to-day IFR; orange line is the 7-day average).
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/11/12/a-big-bank-says-tax-remote-workers-to-rebuild-economy-from-covid
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/10/four-seasons-total-landscaping-rudy-giuliani
I look forward to her take on the goings on at No 10
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54902056
I can only imagine the paperwork.
'... but avoid exclusive connections, and never allow yourself to prefer the society of Wykehamists to that of persons, equally deserving, who were bred at Eton or Westminster.'
It's become one of those staple newspaper stories, like the Blair/Brown feud ones that were printed every Sunday in the Before Times, or the "worst week yet for this government" that have had to be lain aside now that it's too depressing because the consequences of government dysfunction have become too great.
I'm sure we have several more iterations of this story to come.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38016191
A clue ... the one who also said that his party was a moral crusade or it was nothing.
In fact if I ever agreed with you about anything, I would want to go back and check my reasoning severely.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Indeed Hague and Ed Miliband are the only leaders of the opposition educated at comprehensives too