Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

In The Bleak Midwinter – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,244



    If it safe for 3 families to get drunk for Christmas at home then it is safe for them to get drunk together in the pub. Which as you point out is likely a lot cleaner and more controlled an environment. Yet for most of the country going to the pub as 3 families will be illegal. The hypocrisy in the regulations has been there from the start and sadly they aren't learning any lessons.

    Is 3 families so that he can have the technology consultant and the musician round over Christmas...?

    That's not true, though, is it?

    The idea of the various cellular divisions introduced in society is to provide firewalls against COVID transmission.

    Groups of 3 households in a pub mix with other such groups differently to those same groups of 3 households being in separate houses.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    The first three vaccines are already in full production, we’re only a couple of weeks away from formal approvals and within days there’s going to be nurses in almost every care home.

    All three vaccines will arrive in the millions before Christmas, there’s a task force identifying those most at risk who will head the queues, with the military helping out with logistics where required.

    Given the government is borrowing £1bn a day at the moment, there is a huge incentive to get everyone who wants a vaccine done by the spring - so that life can return to something approaching normal.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    Shopping anecdote. In our 4th M and S food hall of the day we tracked down 2 snow globe gins. A successful morning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    geoffw said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:
    I know we all love to take the piss out of politicians, but the simple act having someone in No.10 pick this up and reply to it will bring smiles to the face, not only of that one kid, but many more who will see the story.

    I have two young nephews who just replied to me that they’re so happy Santa will still be coming to visit a month from now, despite everything else that’s happened this year.
    And in the households where Santa can't afford much this year? Raising peoples hopes, but never having to deal with the outcome, a familiar ploy from Boris.

    If its backed up by news of an extension of the uplift in universal credit, or a xmas bonus, great, otherwise its promising things to kids with other peoples money.
    I thought we had settled on the fact that Santa is a reactionary extremist with extensive criminal behaviour, including child protection issues. And almost certainly runs a xenophobic sweatshop.
    Isn't he a superspreader?

    And he gets a surprising amount of his stock from China. Just saying.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364

    nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    You're right I do.

    This is a matter of national security and the military have been quite rightly drafted in to deal with the logistics. We are in a war against COVID right now, we are running a wartime budget deficit and as a matter of national security the military must do whatever it takes to ensure the logistics of vaccine rollout are implemented in full.

    I have every reason to be confident they will succeed.

    My suspicion is that Valentine's Day is the day to be optimistic for life to begin to phase back to normal. Valentine's Day fortunately is a key celebration for couples who will not need to be socially distanced from each other. So if every region can be in Tier 2 or below by that point then restaurants should be able to sell out every single table they can squeeze in to a couple.

    By Mothers Day I'm reasonably optimistic that most of the country will be in Tier 1 or below.

    By June I think the Tiers will be behind us and the pandemic will be essentially over.
    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    HYUFD said:
    Boris is having a busy week. He has also come up with the rather impressive slogan "squeeze the disease".
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893


    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.

    Indeed, it's often forgotten how precarious the Conservative position was in 1981. The riots in the summer, the near rebellion of men like Prior and Gilmour and the evolution of the SDP all looked huge threats.

    I was a Liberal Party member in London and I vividly remember canvassing in a staunch Conservative area one freezing cold evening in early March 1982 as early preparation for the local elections due that May. I went down one street which had been marked up as 75% Conservative on a previous canvass but in many houses I found contempt for Thatcher, disillusionment with the Conservatives and strong interest in the new SDP.

    I later checked the return - the 75% was now 40% solid Conservative and I estimated SDP support around 25% with a lot of Don't Knows.

    I have two views on this - first, had the Falklands War not happened and a number of senior Conservatives gone over to the SDP in early and mid 1982, the Conservatives would have lost the election. Second, the Falklands War didn't just save the Conservatives but it also saved Labour. It ensured Labour remained the only credible alternative Government which would not have been the case had the Alliance achieved a significant breakthrough in seats in a 1983 or 1984 election.

    The counter argument is the economic recovery instigated by the Conservatives after the first three Howe Budgets would have ensured re-election in 1984 even if there had been no Falklands conflict.
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I was involved in a council by-election (remember those?) with polling day on 22/11/90.

    The Lib Dems had the fast turnaround printing to have a lot of fun with the national situation. (The Good Morning Leaflet was headed something like "After all this, they still expect you to vote for them..." Simple, viscous, deadly.)
  • MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    I hadn't thought of the debt rollover/QE interchange but had kind of assumed that when BoE-held debt expires then the BoE could purchase some new debt to replace that which they held which has expired and it would not be considered QE?

    My understanding was that the Bank is operating to a QE limit, which was raised earlier this year, which acts kind of like the drama we get perennially from the States when they raise their debt limit. Once risen the limit is never dropped back down, so if the debt expires then they can replace that within their pre-existing limit.
  • MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    They get to do it because they vote en masse with high turnout.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005
    DavidL said:

    On the previous thread I gave a couple of examples about how we are failing to deal with Covid. The example was my daughter returned from France yesterday. She spent the morning wandering around terminal 5 (thought it was brilliant) and then using public transport to return to Dundee so that she could self isolate for 2 weeks whilst her partner continues to deliver food to vulnerable, shielding customers. This is irrational.

    The second example was my nephew who hasn't been tested despite having 5 of 8 flatmates being positive for the virus because he has no symptoms. When are we ever going to come to grips with asymptomatic transmission? He has to self isolate but my daughter's partner doesn't. This is irrational.

    A third and broader example is in @Cyclefree's thread header. Instead of using highly regulated, properly equipped hospitality venues we are allowing people to get together in house parties of up to 6 with no masks, no social distancing, nothing. This is irrational.

    We also have a situation in Scotland where the entire country is at least 1 and typically 2 bands higher than it should be going on the published infection rates in the community. The economic consequences of this are horrendous but barely discussed. If the original banding is thought to be too high change it. But for goodness sake don't give explanations which MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL ON THE KNOWN FACTS.

    We have simply not got to grip with what works and what doesn't. That is why we let people go abroad on holiday this year. That is why we can't make up our mind whether to allow people into their offices or not but think its ok for them to be on building sites.

    I am not saying that this is easy or that people have been stupid (much). I am conscious that it is very easy sitting on a laptop to skip over inconvenient facts and uncertainties. But I want our governments to get a grip. That means that Christmas lunch is safer in a restaurant than in a house. It means that we need to test all those who have suffered serious exposure whether they have symptoms or not. And it means we don't stop businesses that can operate safely from carrying on their trade.

    Agreed.
    And the entire communications aspect has been pretty much godawful throughout.

    We had the contradictory messages over summer (whiplashing from "Work at Home" to "Go to your workplace or lose your job" to "Bugger, oops, work at home for God's sake!")

    They've messed up briefings and statistics/graphs by putting unnecessary or potentially misleading ones out when the completely accurate and appropriate ones would have done the job perfectly.

    That last is inexcusable. Simply putting up the central forecasts and most likely ones, and commenting that "obviously, the worst case is much worse" would have more than supported their case. Focusing on the actual admissions and deaths trajectories, pointing out how these each lag infections, and showing how they contribute to the most likely case would have been easy.

    As it is, they gave a gift to the denialists and Toby Youngs who instantly focused on the most unsupportable or excessive ones, aimed all the discussion on those, and then acted as though discrediting those discredited the entire case. Really stupid, and a total failure of communication strategy.
  • nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    You're right I do.

    This is a matter of national security and the military have been quite rightly drafted in to deal with the logistics. We are in a war against COVID right now, we are running a wartime budget deficit and as a matter of national security the military must do whatever it takes to ensure the logistics of vaccine rollout are implemented in full.

    I have every reason to be confident they will succeed.

    My suspicion is that Valentine's Day is the day to be optimistic for life to begin to phase back to normal. Valentine's Day fortunately is a key celebration for couples who will not need to be socially distanced from each other. So if every region can be in Tier 2 or below by that point then restaurants should be able to sell out every single table they can squeeze in to a couple.

    By Mothers Day I'm reasonably optimistic that most of the country will be in Tier 1 or below.

    By June I think the Tiers will be behind us and the pandemic will be essentially over.
    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.
    Indeed. The only noticeable complication is the fact that people get the flu jab once whereas this needs to be two jabs spaced four weeks apart.

    Being realistic manufacturing supplies is going to be a bigger constraint than the logistics of rolling it out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    Pulpstar said:

    I note Starmer apparently says Labour will support a Brexit deal. Does that mean there'll be a deal ?!

    That's really up to Johnson.
    What Labour have done is given him the room to negotiate without the absolute need to placate the Tory headbangers, so he can reach a deal.

    Whether he will agree to a deal is a different question.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    HYUFD said:
    Heartwarming, eh? Don`t fall for it though. This is what Boris actually wrote:

    "Dear Monti,

    Jeez. All the elves are furloughed. It`s a looking a bit dodge this year.

    If – if – he makes it – unlikely - hand sanitiser is a good idea, but I`m afraid things are worse that you thought. Who the fuck can afford cookies this year?

    You are right, the scientists are very busy, so I`ve had banters with my friend Toby. He`s a jolly fine fellow. He suggests you use Granny as a human shield.

    Be sure to hide under the blankets or Mr Covid will come get ya!! Just a joke - of course, we will have to wait 14 days to see if you get it.

    Best wishes,
    Boris
    p.s. You can`t spell government. (Memo to Williamson.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Starmer apparently says Labour will support a Brexit deal. Does that mean there'll be a deal ?!

    That's really up to Johnson.
    What Labour have done is given him the room to negotiate without the absolute need to placate the Tory headbangers, so he can reach a deal.

    Whether he will agree to a deal is a different question.
    Yes and kudos to SKS btw for doing this. It was very much in the national interest and contrasts sharply with the way that Corbyn behaved with May's efforts.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    edited November 2020
    stodge said:


    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.

    Indeed, it's often forgotten how precarious the Conservative position was in 1981. The riots in the summer, the near rebellion of men like Prior and Gilmour and the evolution of the SDP all looked huge threats.

    I was a Liberal Party member in London and I vividly remember canvassing in a staunch Conservative area one freezing cold evening in early March 1982 as early preparation for the local elections due that May. I went down one street which had been marked up as 75% Conservative on a previous canvass but in many houses I found contempt for Thatcher, disillusionment with the Conservatives and strong interest in the new SDP.

    I later checked the return - the 75% was now 40% solid Conservative and I estimated SDP support around 25% with a lot of Don't Knows.

    I have two views on this - first, had the Falklands War not happened and a number of senior Conservatives gone over to the SDP in early and mid 1982, the Conservatives would have lost the election. Second, the Falklands War didn't just save the Conservatives but it also saved Labour. It ensured Labour remained the only credible alternative Government which would not have been the case had the Alliance achieved a significant breakthrough in seats in a 1983 or 1984 election.

    The counter argument is the economic recovery instigated by the Conservatives after the first three Howe Budgets would have ensured re-election in 1984 even if there had been no Falklands conflict.
    A good point.

    Wasn't New Labour ostensibly the SDP by another name, and should someone like Starmer ever win an election, it will also be as the SDP by another name.
  • Mr. Foremain, there were several voluntary taxes (donate what you like, I think) in the latter half of the 17th century. They actually raised significant sums of money.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893


    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.

    Yes, the two key elements to that are "in a few months" and remember it's not 15 million, it's 30 million because it's 15 million people twice so it's a greater logistical challenge than you seem to think.

    In Newham, there are 78,000 people over the age of 50 (we are a young part of the country which might explain the lesser impact of second wave at this time, just a thought) so that means 156,000 separate vaccination shots. A number of those will have mobility challenges and other issues which mean we can't all troop over to ExCel and get jab one and return three weeks later for jab two.

    It's possible a number will refuse the vaccine for various reasons - we don't know yet though I imagine there'll be a big public information campaign to urge us to take the shots - but it still looks a big undertaking from where I'm sitting even with military involvement.

    How are we going to check it reaches the right people? How do we ensure younger people don't jump the queue? What about those who are, and let's be blunt about this, living off the grid or below the radar and don't want the authorities to know they exist for whatever reason?

  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 682
    Foxy said:

    The first tranche can plan for Burns Night instead, or Valentines Day for the less whisky inclined.

    ".... less whisky inclined"

    Who are these weird and unworldly people of whom you speak ?!? .... :astonished:

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    You're right I do.

    This is a matter of national security and the military have been quite rightly drafted in to deal with the logistics. We are in a war against COVID right now, we are running a wartime budget deficit and as a matter of national security the military must do whatever it takes to ensure the logistics of vaccine rollout are implemented in full.

    I have every reason to be confident they will succeed.

    My suspicion is that Valentine's Day is the day to be optimistic for life to begin to phase back to normal. Valentine's Day fortunately is a key celebration for couples who will not need to be socially distanced from each other. So if every region can be in Tier 2 or below by that point then restaurants should be able to sell out every single table they can squeeze in to a couple.

    By Mothers Day I'm reasonably optimistic that most of the country will be in Tier 1 or below.

    By June I think the Tiers will be behind us and the pandemic will be essentially over.
    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.
    Yes seems like the 95% problem or whatever its called, where you can sort out almost everything it's just the final few % that cause the problems.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    DavidL said:

    On the previous thread I gave a couple of examples about how we are failing to deal with Covid. The example was my daughter returned from France yesterday. She spent the morning wandering around terminal 5 (thought it was brilliant) and then using public transport to return to Dundee so that she could self isolate for 2 weeks whilst her partner continues to deliver food to vulnerable, shielding customers. This is irrational.

    The second example was my nephew who hasn't been tested despite having 5 of 8 flatmates being positive for the virus because he has no symptoms. When are we ever going to come to grips with asymptomatic transmission? He has to self isolate but my daughter's partner doesn't. This is irrational.

    A third and broader example is in @Cyclefree's thread header. Instead of using highly regulated, properly equipped hospitality venues we are allowing people to get together in house parties of up to 6 with no masks, no social distancing, nothing. This is irrational.

    We also have a situation in Scotland where the entire country is at least 1 and typically 2 bands higher than it should be going on the published infection rates in the community. The economic consequences of this are horrendous but barely discussed. If the original banding is thought to be too high change it. But for goodness sake don't give explanations which MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL ON THE KNOWN FACTS.

    We have simply not got to grip with what works and what doesn't. That is why we let people go abroad on holiday this year. That is why we can't make up our mind whether to allow people into their offices or not but think its ok for them to be on building sites.

    I am not saying that this is easy or that people have been stupid (much). I am conscious that it is very easy sitting on a laptop to skip over inconvenient facts and uncertainties. But I want our governments to get a grip. That means that Christmas lunch is safer in a restaurant than in a house. It means that we need to test all those who have suffered serious exposure whether they have symptoms or not. And it means we don't stop businesses that can operate safely from carrying on their trade.

    Agreed.
    And the entire communications aspect has been pretty much godawful throughout.

    We had the contradictory messages over summer (whiplashing from "Work at Home" to "Go to your workplace or lose your job" to "Bugger, oops, work at home for God's sake!")

    They've messed up briefings and statistics/graphs by putting unnecessary or potentially misleading ones out when the completely accurate and appropriate ones would have done the job perfectly.

    That last is inexcusable. Simply putting up the central forecasts and most likely ones, and commenting that "obviously, the worst case is much worse" would have more than supported their case. Focusing on the actual admissions and deaths trajectories, pointing out how these each lag infections, and showing how they contribute to the most likely case would have been easy.

    As it is, they gave a gift to the denialists and Toby Youngs who instantly focused on the most unsupportable or excessive ones, aimed all the discussion on those, and then acted as though discrediting those discredited the entire case. Really stupid, and a total failure of communication strategy.
    Couldn't agree more. The determination to see exponential growth when it was clearly linear was a good example. The linear growth absolutely required urgent action. They simply undermined their own case by allowing idiots to point out that things were nowhere near as bad as they said they were going to be as if that made it ok to do nothing.
  • Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.


    As part of the seismic changes the EEC had just 7 weeks before gained 16M people overnight with only three member states (Germany, France and the UK) having agreed to it.

    The other curious point to this story was that John Major was not really on the radar as next PM at this stage. He was already Chancellor, but was not widely known except ba those who followed politics. It was only once he appeared to be the "better than Hurd and not a Hestletine" candidate, when he became favourite to be the new PM.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364
    kle4 said:

    nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    You're right I do.

    This is a matter of national security and the military have been quite rightly drafted in to deal with the logistics. We are in a war against COVID right now, we are running a wartime budget deficit and as a matter of national security the military must do whatever it takes to ensure the logistics of vaccine rollout are implemented in full.

    I have every reason to be confident they will succeed.

    My suspicion is that Valentine's Day is the day to be optimistic for life to begin to phase back to normal. Valentine's Day fortunately is a key celebration for couples who will not need to be socially distanced from each other. So if every region can be in Tier 2 or below by that point then restaurants should be able to sell out every single table they can squeeze in to a couple.

    By Mothers Day I'm reasonably optimistic that most of the country will be in Tier 1 or below.

    By June I think the Tiers will be behind us and the pandemic will be essentially over.
    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.
    Yes seems like the 95% problem or whatever its called, where you can sort out almost everything it's just the final few % that cause the problems.
    If we get 15 million people vaccinated - that's everyone over 60, I think.

    Repeat 3 more times (and a bit) - and that's everyone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    FPT:
    Labour have little choice but to back the deal and hang it round Shagger's neck like the albatross it is. As the alternative - no deal - would be at least a little worse than whatever deal he agrees, its a question of how badly we lose not whether we lose at all.

    If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories wilfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.

    Agreed.

    All the announcement of Labour backing does is remove the inevitability of no deal.
    Just how rubbish the deal might be is entirely down to the current and previous Conservative governments.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    I hadn't thought of the debt rollover/QE interchange but had kind of assumed that when BoE-held debt expires then the BoE could purchase some new debt to replace that which they held which has expired and it would not be considered QE?

    My understanding was that the Bank is operating to a QE limit, which was raised earlier this year, which acts kind of like the drama we get perennially from the States when they raise their debt limit. Once risen the limit is never dropped back down, so if the debt expires then they can replace that within their pre-existing limit.
    Yes it does operate on a ceiling, my point is that we're rapidly approaching the limit of QE and the Bank may need to reduce asset holdings to gain credibility with markets in the future.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,804

    DavidL said:

    On the previous thread I gave a couple of examples about how we are failing to deal with Covid. The example was my daughter returned from France yesterday. She spent the morning wandering around terminal 5 (thought it was brilliant) and then using public transport to return to Dundee so that she could self isolate for 2 weeks whilst her partner continues to deliver food to vulnerable, shielding customers. This is irrational.

    The second example was my nephew who hasn't been tested despite having 5 of 8 flatmates being positive for the virus because he has no symptoms. When are we ever going to come to grips with asymptomatic transmission? He has to self isolate but my daughter's partner doesn't. This is irrational.

    A third and broader example is in @Cyclefree's thread header. Instead of using highly regulated, properly equipped hospitality venues we are allowing people to get together in house parties of up to 6 with no masks, no social distancing, nothing. This is irrational.

    We also have a situation in Scotland where the entire country is at least 1 and typically 2 bands higher than it should be going on the published infection rates in the community. The economic consequences of this are horrendous but barely discussed. If the original banding is thought to be too high change it. But for goodness sake don't give explanations which MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL ON THE KNOWN FACTS.

    We have simply not got to grip with what works and what doesn't. That is why we let people go abroad on holiday this year. That is why we can't make up our mind whether to allow people into their offices or not but think its ok for them to be on building sites.

    I am not saying that this is easy or that people have been stupid (much). I am conscious that it is very easy sitting on a laptop to skip over inconvenient facts and uncertainties. But I want our governments to get a grip. That means that Christmas lunch is safer in a restaurant than in a house. It means that we need to test all those who have suffered serious exposure whether they have symptoms or not. And it means we don't stop businesses that can operate safely from carrying on their trade.

    Agreed.
    And the entire communications aspect has been pretty much godawful throughout.

    We had the contradictory messages over summer (whiplashing from "Work at Home" to "Go to your workplace or lose your job" to "Bugger, oops, work at home for God's sake!")

    They've messed up briefings and statistics/graphs by putting unnecessary or potentially misleading ones out when the completely accurate and appropriate ones would have done the job perfectly.

    That last is inexcusable. Simply putting up the central forecasts and most likely ones, and commenting that "obviously, the worst case is much worse" would have more than supported their case. Focusing on the actual admissions and deaths trajectories, pointing out how these each lag infections, and showing how they contribute to the most likely case would have been easy.

    As it is, they gave a gift to the denialists and Toby Youngs who instantly focused on the most unsupportable or excessive ones, aimed all the discussion on those, and then acted as though discrediting those discredited the entire case. Really stupid, and a total failure of communication strategy.
    And the shambles of the testing statistics early on made worse by the deliberate misrepresentation just to spin the 100,000 figure.
  • Mr. Foremain, there were several voluntary taxes (donate what you like, I think) in the latter half of the 17th century. They actually raised significant sums of money.

    Isn't the National Lottery essentially a voluntary tax?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    kle4 said:

    nichomar said:


    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    In Guernsey (now 1 COVID case, in quarantine) my experience is that hospitality is doing very well post lockdown - out for lunch yesterday with friends - packed out on a Tuesday
    That's what it will be like in the Spring here.

    It is getting through the winter that has to happen first though.
    You have a lot of faith in the manufacture, distribution and administration of a vaccine in numbers to make any difference by the summer let alone spring. It’s not as if no other major events are happening.
    You're right I do.

    This is a matter of national security and the military have been quite rightly drafted in to deal with the logistics. We are in a war against COVID right now, we are running a wartime budget deficit and as a matter of national security the military must do whatever it takes to ensure the logistics of vaccine rollout are implemented in full.

    I have every reason to be confident they will succeed.

    My suspicion is that Valentine's Day is the day to be optimistic for life to begin to phase back to normal. Valentine's Day fortunately is a key celebration for couples who will not need to be socially distanced from each other. So if every region can be in Tier 2 or below by that point then restaurants should be able to sell out every single table they can squeeze in to a couple.

    By Mothers Day I'm reasonably optimistic that most of the country will be in Tier 1 or below.

    By June I think the Tiers will be behind us and the pandemic will be essentially over.
    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.
    Yes seems like the 95% problem or whatever its called, where you can sort out almost everything it's just the final few % that cause the problems.
    Yes, the vast majority should be quite straightforward, and once the infection rate is way down it’s not going to be a massive effort to do the mopping-up at the end. They need to look out for foreigners who are unknown to the NHS, homeless and others who have dropped off the grid.

    There will be records of everyone who had a flu jab this year, and where there were mobility problems etc that needed addressing, so that bit should be straighforward. Once the over-60s and vulnerable groups are all done, younger people can make themselves known to pharmacies and surgeries at their convenience, alongside a major public information campaign.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,355
    RobD said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    I thought the various furlough schemes had been viewed as a success?
    Only for those that got free holidays
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364
    stodge said:


    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.

    Yes, the two key elements to that are "in a few months" and remember it's not 15 million, it's 30 million because it's 15 million people twice so it's a greater logistical challenge than you seem to think.

    In Newham, there are 78,000 people over the age of 50 (we are a young part of the country which might explain the lesser impact of second wave at this time, just a thought) so that means 156,000 separate vaccination shots. A number of those will have mobility challenges and other issues which mean we can't all troop over to ExCel and get jab one and return three weeks later for jab two.

    It's possible a number will refuse the vaccine for various reasons - we don't know yet though I imagine there'll be a big public information campaign to urge us to take the shots - but it still looks a big undertaking from where I'm sitting even with military involvement.

    How are we going to check it reaches the right people? How do we ensure younger people don't jump the queue? What about those who are, and let's be blunt about this, living off the grid or below the radar and don't want the authorities to know they exist for whatever reason?

    The existing lists of people etc for flu shots that happen every year can be used to contact and setup the appointments for elderly and at risk groups. That's what the GPs do each year....

    Those with mobility challenges etc get their flu shots in a normal year, after all.

    Two visits to the vaccination clinic (or three, including the flu shot) are not going to cause the end of the world.

    The aim is to get a high take-up of the vaccine(s) - some will try and jump the queue. Some will refuse.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893
    eristdoof said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.


    As part of the seismic changes the EEC had just 7 weeks before gained 16M people overnight with only three member states (Germany, France and the UK) having agreed to it.

    The other curious point to this story was that John Major was not really on the radar as next PM at this stage. He was already Chancellor, but was not widely known except ba those who followed politics. It was only once he appeared to be the "better than Hurd and not a Hestletine" candidate, when he became favourite to be the new PM.
    What got John Major over the line were the polls the weekend after Thatcher's departure showing he would do as well against Kinnock's Labour as Heseltine if not better.

    There's a key point for the future - the Conservative Party (and it's not alone in this) will only remove a leader when it's clear the leader itself is the problem and the problem would be solved by another leader.

    With Thatcher, Labour led by ten points, with Heseltine, the parties were level. Conservative backbenchers with small majorities faced electoral oblivion with Thatcher but a chance for salvation with Heseltine. That encouraged Heseltine to stand.

    Last year, once it became clear only Johnson, of all the leadership challengers, could deliver a majority for the Conservatives, the leadership election, as a contest, was over and once Prime Minister, the General Election was also over as a contest. The only way a non-Conservative Government could have been elected would have been for the Conservative-Leave vote to have been split with a sizeable chunk going to Farage. A divided Leave vote and a divided Remain vote would have produced a Commons with no overall majority (again).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery...

    Not if they've already closed.
    Cyclefree makes a very good case for time limited support to keep the industry alive. I hope it is listened to.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,355
    MattW said:

    BTW.

    A small piece of good news.

    Just had a telephone meeting with the Cancer Nurse, and the latest set of blood tests are all but one back in the normal range. Not bad for 3 months after treatment, and one nightmare over for now.

    Which means I am basically clear of current consequences of this Hairy Cell Leukemia subject to the usual prognosis of a recurrence in a decade or two.

    Anecdata: I was separately in hospital for the blood test clinic on Monday, and the car parks were the fullest I have ever seen them. Had to park a longish walk away, despite there being visitor / companion restrictions in place. At least here (Sherwood Forest Hospitals) a full outpatient programme is up and running.

    My wife just had letter with 3rd cancellation of telephone appointment that replaced original consultant appointment , now planned for late February. Hard to believe they cannot do a 5 minute telephone call in almost 6 months.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    My flu jab is arranged by my employer, I assume many will get this vaccine the same way? The refuseniks is the problem.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    stodge said:


    Last year, the UK vaccinated 15 million people against the flu, in a few months, without any especial effort.

    This suggests that, provided the supplies of vaccines are available, getting 15 million people vaccinated in a few moths should be perfectly possible. More would require more effort, but when we get to 4.5 times that, we are talking about the whole population.

    It is worth noting that the elderly age groups (and vulnerable people) being prioritised for the COVID jab are those that are encouraged to the take the flu jab each year.

    Yes, the two key elements to that are "in a few months" and remember it's not 15 million, it's 30 million because it's 15 million people twice so it's a greater logistical challenge than you seem to think.

    In Newham, there are 78,000 people over the age of 50 (we are a young part of the country which might explain the lesser impact of second wave at this time, just a thought) so that means 156,000 separate vaccination shots. A number of those will have mobility challenges and other issues which mean we can't all troop over to ExCel and get jab one and return three weeks later for jab two.

    It's possible a number will refuse the vaccine for various reasons - we don't know yet though I imagine there'll be a big public information campaign to urge us to take the shots - but it still looks a big undertaking from where I'm sitting even with military involvement.

    How are we going to check it reaches the right people? How do we ensure younger people don't jump the queue? What about those who are, and let's be blunt about this, living off the grid or below the radar and don't want the authorities to know they exist for whatever reason?

    The existing lists of people etc for flu shots that happen every year can be used to contact and setup the appointments for elderly and at risk groups. That's what the GPs do each year....

    Those with mobility challenges etc get their flu shots in a normal year, after all.

    Two visits to the vaccination clinic (or three, including the flu shot) are not going to cause the end of the world.

    The aim is to get a high take-up of the vaccine(s) - some will try and jump the queue. Some will refuse.
    I wonder if we will see a grey market appear for private vaccines in the early stages? There’s going to be a lot of companies with large numbers of public-facing staff or large offices who would be interested, as well as people who travel around for work.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,355

    Mr. Foremain, there were several voluntary taxes (donate what you like, I think) in the latter half of the 17th century. They actually raised significant sums of money.

    Unfortunately MD it is not the 17th century.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    I hadn't thought of the debt rollover/QE interchange but had kind of assumed that when BoE-held debt expires then the BoE could purchase some new debt to replace that which they held which has expired and it would not be considered QE?

    My understanding was that the Bank is operating to a QE limit, which was raised earlier this year, which acts kind of like the drama we get perennially from the States when they raise their debt limit. Once risen the limit is never dropped back down, so if the debt expires then they can replace that within their pre-existing limit.
    Yes it does operate on a ceiling, my point is that we're rapidly approaching the limit of QE and the Bank may need to reduce asset holdings to gain credibility with markets in the future.
    Well indeed reducing holdings may be necessary at some point, though more likely an increase in holdings will at some point need to be avoided and what is already held will simply remain held forever. Like the distinction between deficit and debt, we're never going to repay the debt (as opposed to rollover) but will need to hold down the deficit - the Bank will need to stop increasing QE but is never realistically going to remove its holdings, they will just roll it over.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    I thought the various furlough schemes had been viewed as a success?
    Only for those that got free holidays
    I honestly have no idea if it was a success. Its kept a lid on unemployment, though the way some talk anyone being redundant after thus will be a failure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    Tegnell talks realistically.

    Top epidemiologist says Sweden has no signs of herd immunity curbing coronavirus
    https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus
    Sweden's top infectious disease expert said Tuesday that the country has not seen evidence of herd immunity slowing the spread of the coronavirus in the country.

    “The issue of herd immunity is difficult,” Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist, said at a news briefing, according to Bloomberg News.

    “We see no signs of immunity in the population that are slowing down the infection right now," Tegnell said...

    ...“I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behavior enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighboring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”

    Bloomberg noted that Swedes have faced more exposure to the coronavirus than residents in other Nordic areas and data published this week showed that every third person tested in Stockholm has tested positive for antibodies.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    I thought the various furlough schemes had been viewed as a success?
    Only for those that got free holidays
    They would have had an even longer holiday without it.
  • Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Because your claim is bullshit. 2019/20 was after the recession hit.

    It was 1.2% in 2018/19 and that was down on what it was the year before and had come down every year for a decade. In 2016/17 it was significantly higher and needlessly so since it had been a surplus just a few years earlier but that surplus had been frittered into a deficit during years of growth.

    Debt to GDP isn't the relevant factor. The deficit is the relevant factor. Debt to GDP will go up if there is too big of a deficit, it will go down if there is a small enough deficit or a surplus. Look after the deficit and the debt will look after itself.
    The last week of March (which is when the Covid hit to the economy started) had barely any impact on the deficit. Borrowing in March 2020 was up by less than £8bn on the previous March so the number was heading for 2.2% of GDP absent Covid. The equivalent number for FY2018 was 1.9%, 2.6% in FY2017 and 2.5% in FY2017. None of these numbers differ enough from 3% to justify your claim that the fiscal landscape is utterly different from 2006.
    Debt is highly relevant to decisions about whether to run a deficit, because the level of debt is what determines how the market views your solvency. A country running a 15% of GDP deficit with a debt ratio below 40% of GDP is a different proposition to a country running the same deficit but with debt at 90% of GDP. I am surprised to hear you claiming otherwise.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,218

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    Nigelb said:

    Tegnell talks realistically.

    Top epidemiologist says Sweden has no signs of herd immunity curbing coronavirus
    https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus
    Sweden's top infectious disease expert said Tuesday that the country has not seen evidence of herd immunity slowing the spread of the coronavirus in the country.

    “The issue of herd immunity is difficult,” Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist, said at a news briefing, according to Bloomberg News.

    “We see no signs of immunity in the population that are slowing down the infection right now," Tegnell said...

    ...“I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behavior enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighboring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”

    Bloomberg noted that Swedes have faced more exposure to the coronavirus than residents in other Nordic areas and data published this week showed that every third person tested in Stockholm has tested positive for antibodies.

    Positives or negatives to their approach I hope people actually listen to him when he says the bits in bold.
  • MattW said:



    If it safe for 3 families to get drunk for Christmas at home then it is safe for them to get drunk together in the pub. Which as you point out is likely a lot cleaner and more controlled an environment. Yet for most of the country going to the pub as 3 families will be illegal. The hypocrisy in the regulations has been there from the start and sadly they aren't learning any lessons.

    Is 3 families so that he can have the technology consultant and the musician round over Christmas...?

    That's not true, though, is it?

    The idea of the various cellular divisions introduced in society is to provide firewalls against COVID transmission.

    Groups of 3 households in a pub mix with other such groups differently to those same groups of 3 households being in separate houses.

    That can't be right. For many months it was acceptable to meet my parents in the pub but not at their house. Or once they stopped you from "mingling" with your own parents it was still acceptable to mingle with other people's parents in the pub.

    Either meeting people indoors is an acceptable risk or it is not. If I can meet 5 people for Christmas lunch at home I should be free to meet 5 people for Christmas lunch at @Cyclefree's daughter's pub.
  • kle4 said:

    My flu jab is arranged by my employer, I assume many will get this vaccine the same way? The refuseniks is the problem.

    Your flu jab is presumably provided privately and your employer purchases in bulk to get a discounted rate (albeit still more expensive than just getting it at a supermarket).

    I presume there will be no legitimate private market for covid vaccines in the UK in late 2020/early 2021 so bringing employers into it seems like adding red tape unless its selecting specific employers based on risk of transmission and high number of contacts their staff have (transport workers, teachers, supermarket staff etc).
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    I hadn't thought of the debt rollover/QE interchange but had kind of assumed that when BoE-held debt expires then the BoE could purchase some new debt to replace that which they held which has expired and it would not be considered QE?

    My understanding was that the Bank is operating to a QE limit, which was raised earlier this year, which acts kind of like the drama we get perennially from the States when they raise their debt limit. Once risen the limit is never dropped back down, so if the debt expires then they can replace that within their pre-existing limit.
    Yes it does operate on a ceiling, my point is that we're rapidly approaching the limit of QE and the Bank may need to reduce asset holdings to gain credibility with markets in the future.
    If we are rapidly approaching the limit to QE somebody needs to inform the BOE, who have agreed to buy another £150bn in gilts over the course of next year.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    BTW.

    A small piece of good news.

    Just had a telephone meeting with the Cancer Nurse, and the latest set of blood tests are all but one back in the normal range. Not bad for 3 months after treatment, and one nightmare over for now.

    Which means I am basically clear of current consequences of this Hairy Cell Leukemia subject to the usual prognosis of a recurrence in a decade or two.

    Anecdata: I was separately in hospital for the blood test clinic on Monday, and the car parks were the fullest I have ever seen them. Had to park a longish walk away, despite there being visitor / companion restrictions in place. At least here (Sherwood Forest Hospitals) a full outpatient programme is up and running.

    My wife just had letter with 3rd cancellation of telephone appointment that replaced original consultant appointment , now planned for late February. Hard to believe they cannot do a 5 minute telephone call in almost 6 months.
    There are many examples of excellent help and care currently being provided by the NHS for non covid cases and unfortunately there are numerous examples of horrendous treatment of non-covid patients. A local surgery near me does everything possible to not see anyone, door still locked,negative Covid test required before anyone will be seen, another surgery 2 miles away operating normally, door open, normal appointments process. I wonder why they are allowed to operate so differently.
  • HYUFD said:
    Boris is having a busy week. He has also come up with the rather impressive slogan "squeeze the disease".
    Given how many time it has generated unexpected surplus offspring if he had squeezed his "disease" instead of doing other things with it, the PM may be better off financially and morally.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    edited November 2020

    kle4 said:

    My flu jab is arranged by my employer, I assume many will get this vaccine the same way? The refuseniks is the problem.

    Your flu jab is presumably provided privately and your employer purchases in bulk to get a discounted rate (albeit still more expensive than just getting it at a supermarket).

    I presume there will be no legitimate private market for covid vaccines in the UK in late 2020/early 2021 so bringing employers into it seems like adding red tape unless its selecting specific employers based on risk of transmission and high number of contacts their staff have (transport workers, teachers, supermarket staff etc).
    Yes, I presume that's how it worked, I just wondered if, though that is private, the process could be coopted by government to reach the younger, working age population rather than those not used to going elsewhere for jabs. But I see the risk of red tape.
  • Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Because your claim is bullshit. 2019/20 was after the recession hit.

    It was 1.2% in 2018/19 and that was down on what it was the year before and had come down every year for a decade. In 2016/17 it was significantly higher and needlessly so since it had been a surplus just a few years earlier but that surplus had been frittered into a deficit during years of growth.

    Debt to GDP isn't the relevant factor. The deficit is the relevant factor. Debt to GDP will go up if there is too big of a deficit, it will go down if there is a small enough deficit or a surplus. Look after the deficit and the debt will look after itself.
    The last week of March (which is when the Covid hit to the economy started) had barely any impact on the deficit. Borrowing in March 2020 was up by less than £8bn on the previous March so the number was heading for 2.2% of GDP absent Covid. The equivalent number for FY2018 was 1.9%, 2.6% in FY2017 and 2.5% in FY2017. None of these numbers differ enough from 3% to justify your claim that the fiscal landscape is utterly different from 2006.
    Debt is highly relevant to decisions about whether to run a deficit, because the level of debt is what determines how the market views your solvency. A country running a 15% of GDP deficit with a debt ratio below 40% of GDP is a different proposition to a country running the same deficit but with debt at 90% of GDP. I am surprised to hear you claiming otherwise.
    You are completely factually incorrect to say the Covid hit to the economy started in the last week of March. @TheScreamingEagles has made the point repeatedly that his train was practically empty already by the first week of March. The economy was getting hit already by February as people started to voluntarily work from home or cancel engagements.

    2018/19 was the final pre-Covid full economic year. There are no ifs or buts about that, don't be dishonest.

    A country running a 15% deficit is unsustainable whether debt is 40% or 90% of GDP and unless that 15% is rapidly closed it will take not much time at all to take the country from 40% to 90% at that rate.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    stodge said:


    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.

    Indeed, it's often forgotten how precarious the Conservative position was in 1981. The riots in the summer, the near rebellion of men like Prior and Gilmour and the evolution of the SDP all looked huge threats.

    I was a Liberal Party member in London and I vividly remember canvassing in a staunch Conservative area one freezing cold evening in early March 1982 as early preparation for the local elections due that May. I went down one street which had been marked up as 75% Conservative on a previous canvass but in many houses I found contempt for Thatcher, disillusionment with the Conservatives and strong interest in the new SDP.

    I later checked the return - the 75% was now 40% solid Conservative and I estimated SDP support around 25% with a lot of Don't Knows.

    I have two views on this - first, had the Falklands War not happened and a number of senior Conservatives gone over to the SDP in early and mid 1982, the Conservatives would have lost the election. Second, the Falklands War didn't just save the Conservatives but it also saved Labour. It ensured Labour remained the only credible alternative Government which would not have been the case had the Alliance achieved a significant breakthrough in seats in a 1983 or 1984 election.

    The counter argument is the economic recovery instigated by the Conservatives after the first three Howe Budgets would have ensured re-election in 1984 even if there had been no Falklands conflict.
    My recollection, too. I think the comment about Labour is correct, too.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Foremain, there were several voluntary taxes (donate what you like, I think) in the latter half of the 17th century. They actually raised significant sums of money.

    Unfortunately MD it is not the 17th century.
    What about the National Lottery? I suggest quite a few 'desirables' have been funded through that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    On general topic, it can be a fine between criticising the government response to Covid-19 having detrimental impacts, and at least appearing to criticise government for there being detrimental impacts from Covid-19 in general. That's not the case with cyclefree, but some commentators can fall into that trap.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,244
    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,603
    A billion!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Starmer apparently says Labour will support a Brexit deal. Does that mean there'll be a deal ?!

    That's really up to Johnson.
    What Labour have done is given him the room to negotiate without the absolute need to placate the Tory headbangers, so he can reach a deal.

    Whether he will agree to a deal is a different question.
    Yes and kudos to SKS btw for doing this. It was very much in the national interest and contrasts sharply with the way that Corbyn behaved with May's efforts.
    A bit ironic since reportedly Keir was a major reason he behaved that way, but he is proving a savvy operator.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    My flu jab is arranged by my employer, I assume many will get this vaccine the same way? The refuseniks is the problem.

    Your flu jab is presumably provided privately and your employer purchases in bulk to get a discounted rate (albeit still more expensive than just getting it at a supermarket).

    I presume there will be no legitimate private market for covid vaccines in the UK in late 2020/early 2021 so bringing employers into it seems like adding red tape unless its selecting specific employers based on risk of transmission and high number of contacts their staff have (transport workers, teachers, supermarket staff etc).
    Yes, I presume that's how it worked, I just wondered if, though that is private, the process could be coopted by government to reach the younger, working age population rather than those not used to going elsewhere for jabs. But I see the risk of red tape.
    Doing it through large, single site, employers is a useful way forward. I was involved in several campaigns to vaccinate school children, and it was the 'strays' which were the problem. Can't, TBH, recall how we dealt with the home-educated, although I don't think there were a lot in South West Essex.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2020
    Good grief. The entirety of Cowboy Bebop is on All4.

    Finally a reason to be.

    https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cowboy-bebop
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL-D9LrFJd4
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    edited November 2020

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post @Big_G_NorthWales - I agree with all these points but would add one additional item (which I suspect you would support):

    Time to end the triple lock for pensions.
    I'll be taking my pension before that happens.

    Edit: Just kidding, I expect to die at my desk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    I thought the various furlough schemes had been viewed as a success?
    Only for those that got free holidays
    I honestly have no idea if it was a success. Its kept a lid on unemployment, though the way some talk anyone being redundant after thus will be a failure.
    It probably saved a couple of businesses I know of directly.
    It was a very blunt instrument (as Sunak acknowledged at the time), but the initial lockdown had a far more general effect on the economy than the current one, and without the furlough there would have been absolute carnage.

    Whether the government made best use of the summer in terms of both economic and pandemic planning is quite another matter.
  • Barnesian said:

    A billion!

    Has Trump found some new votes down the back of the sofa? SeanT identities? Chris Grayling errors?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,218
    edited November 2020

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Because your claim is bullshit. 2019/20 was after the recession hit.

    It was 1.2% in 2018/19 and that was down on what it was the year before and had come down every year for a decade. In 2016/17 it was significantly higher and needlessly so since it had been a surplus just a few years earlier but that surplus had been frittered into a deficit during years of growth.

    Debt to GDP isn't the relevant factor. The deficit is the relevant factor. Debt to GDP will go up if there is too big of a deficit, it will go down if there is a small enough deficit or a surplus. Look after the deficit and the debt will look after itself.
    Not again! Cue my Victor Meldrew. :smile:

    The debt AND the deficit are important. You cannot ignore either. The point is simply not debatable. You are trying to bend economic and financial reality to exactly fit a hole called "Gordon Brown is to blame for everything". It's a fool's errand and I don't know what you think is gained by it.
  • stodge said:

    eristdoof said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.


    As part of the seismic changes the EEC had just 7 weeks before gained 16M people overnight with only three member states (Germany, France and the UK) having agreed to it.

    The other curious point to this story was that John Major was not really on the radar as next PM at this stage. He was already Chancellor, but was not widely known except ba those who followed politics. It was only once he appeared to be the "better than Hurd and not a Hestletine" candidate, when he became favourite to be the new PM.
    What got John Major over the line were the polls the weekend after Thatcher's departure showing he would do as well against Kinnock's Labour as Heseltine if not better.

    There's a key point for the future - the Conservative Party (and it's not alone in this) will only remove a leader when it's clear the leader itself is the problem and the problem would be solved by another leader.

    With Thatcher, Labour led by ten points, with Heseltine, the parties were level. Conservative backbenchers with small majorities faced electoral oblivion with Thatcher but a chance for salvation with Heseltine. That encouraged Heseltine to stand.

    Last year, once it became clear only Johnson, of all the leadership challengers, could deliver a majority for the Conservatives, the leadership election, as a contest, was over and once Prime Minister, the General Election was also over as a contest. The only way a non-Conservative Government could have been elected would have been for the Conservative-Leave vote to have been split with a sizeable chunk going to Farage. A divided Leave vote and a divided Remain vote would have produced a Commons with no overall majority (again).
    And therefore, the great clearouts of 2016 (when people like Osbourne decided they'd had enough) and 2019 (Johnson's purges and more people deciding they'd had enough) were really significant.

    There's Johnson.
    There's Sunak, but he's nowt but a lad.
    Then you're into the "you're joking, right?" candidates. Gove? Patel? Raab?
    Or Hunt, but the party simply won't buy him.

    The unfortunate paradox is that, the weaker Johnson's cabinet, the stronger his personal position. And the instinct for those sort of dynamics is one of Johnson's talents.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,244

    MattW said:



    If it safe for 3 families to get drunk for Christmas at home then it is safe for them to get drunk together in the pub. Which as you point out is likely a lot cleaner and more controlled an environment. Yet for most of the country going to the pub as 3 families will be illegal. The hypocrisy in the regulations has been there from the start and sadly they aren't learning any lessons.

    Is 3 families so that he can have the technology consultant and the musician round over Christmas...?

    That's not true, though, is it?

    The idea of the various cellular divisions introduced in society is to provide firewalls against COVID transmission.

    Groups of 3 households in a pub mix with other such groups differently to those same groups of 3 households being in separate houses.

    That can't be right. For many months it was acceptable to meet my parents in the pub but not at their house. Or once they stopped you from "mingling" with your own parents it was still acceptable to mingle with other people's parents in the pub.

    Either meeting people indoors is an acceptable risk or it is not. If I can meet 5 people for Christmas lunch at home I should be free to meet 5 people for Christmas lunch at @Cyclefree's daughter's pub.
    I think the questionmark there is perhaps over the former practice, or a difference in circs.

    Isn't "5 groups of 3 households in 5 separate houses mix less between groups than 5 groups of 3 households in one pub" just obvious?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    Like piles
  • 99.5% of PPE purchased has been usable.

    Interesting statistic. Really is remarkable that only half a percent under the circumstances have been bad batches, you'd think it was all of it the way some people have been whinging.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Boris sounding very laid back.

    Perhaps he's had a dry sherry or two to put himself in the mood.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    Scott_xP said:
    It'll lead to some bad press, no doubt, but it's an easy target even with the manifesto committment (and subsequent - why proceed with these other manifesto commitments you say still need to happen? - comments) and if that's the worst that comes from the announcements they'd take that, I bet.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Actually SKS doing a good job here. He will still vote with the government at the next few votes I'm guessing.
  • MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Because your claim is bullshit. 2019/20 was after the recession hit.

    It was 1.2% in 2018/19 and that was down on what it was the year before and had come down every year for a decade. In 2016/17 it was significantly higher and needlessly so since it had been a surplus just a few years earlier but that surplus had been frittered into a deficit during years of growth.

    Debt to GDP isn't the relevant factor. The deficit is the relevant factor. Debt to GDP will go up if there is too big of a deficit, it will go down if there is a small enough deficit or a surplus. Look after the deficit and the debt will look after itself.
    Not again! Cue my Victor Meldrew. :smile:

    The debt AND the deficit are important. You cannot ignore either. The point is simply not debatable. You are trying to bend economic and financial reality to exactly fit a hole called "Gordon Brown is to blame for everything". It's a fool's errand and I don't know what you think is gained by it.
    Debt is relevant to the extent we pay interest on it.

    The deficit includes the interest we pay on debt.

    If there is a deficit the debt goes up, if there isn't the debt goes down.

    Ergo the deficit incorporates the debt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    edited November 2020
    TOPPING said:

    Boris sounding very laid back.

    Perhaps he's had a dry sherry or two to put himself in the mood.

    "Is the Prime Minister feeling tired and emotional today?"

    "Nah, mate, I'm wasted!"

    Would spice up PMQs. People seem to like Junker being pissed after all.
  • kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    Your picture is wipe clean presumably.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    BTW.

    A small piece of good news.

    Just had a telephone meeting with the Cancer Nurse, and the latest set of blood tests are all but one back in the normal range. Not bad for 3 months after treatment, and one nightmare over for now.

    Which means I am basically clear of current consequences of this Hairy Cell Leukemia subject to the usual prognosis of a recurrence in a decade or two.

    Anecdata: I was separately in hospital for the blood test clinic on Monday, and the car parks were the fullest I have ever seen them. Had to park a longish walk away, despite there being visitor / companion restrictions in place. At least here (Sherwood Forest Hospitals) a full outpatient programme is up and running.

    My wife just had letter with 3rd cancellation of telephone appointment that replaced original consultant appointment , now planned for late February. Hard to believe they cannot do a 5 minute telephone call in almost 6 months.
    There are many examples of excellent help and care currently being provided by the NHS for non covid cases and unfortunately there are numerous examples of horrendous treatment of non-covid patients. A local surgery near me does everything possible to not see anyone, door still locked,negative Covid test required before anyone will be seen, another surgery 2 miles away operating normally, door open, normal appointments process. I wonder why they are allowed to operate so differently.
    People. Some people, when challenged by a change in conditions, adapt. Others just... stop... in a confused muddle.

    The school my youngest daughter was going to (now in secondary) was a case in point. The lady who runs the administrative side of things there was working at full tilt - within hours of government guidance changing, she was emailing out initial plans for dealing with issues - separate entrances, drop off procedures, masks, plans of the school with areas marked on them etc etc. It wasn't all perfect or successful, but the attempt was pretty impressive.

    A school, literally round the corner, similar funding levels, demography etc, just collapsed into wibble. The head administrator there was all about staff room politics*, apparently, But he just couldn't do anything that hadn't been done before. And probably been done for him, by a predecessor.

    *No, not unionism, but the nonsense about creating opposing factions within the staff.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris didn't U-turn over this - it would fit perfectly with the new One Nation, internationalist, Bidenesque image he's cultivating. Moreover the cut was mainly driven by Rees-Mogg and the Daily Express - both discredited instruments of the Trump era.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    Scott_xP said:
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris didn't U-turn over this - it would fit perfectly with the new One Nation, internationalist, Bidenesque image he's cultivating. Moreover the cut was mainly driven by Rees-Mogg and the Daily Express - both discredited instruments of the Trump era.
    He can do the usual PM thing of getting people to blame the Chancellor, as though it wouldn't have been agreed with him first. Cut Rishi down to size.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris didn't U-turn over this - it would fit perfectly with the new One Nation, internationalist, Bidenesque image he's cultivating. Moreover the cut was mainly driven by Rees-Mogg and the Daily Express - both discredited instruments of the Trump era.
    If a cut happens it will be because we have limited amounts of money and this is the only department other than the NHS to have faced no austerity within the past decade.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,218

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Because your claim is bullshit. 2019/20 was after the recession hit.

    It was 1.2% in 2018/19 and that was down on what it was the year before and had come down every year for a decade. In 2016/17 it was significantly higher and needlessly so since it had been a surplus just a few years earlier but that surplus had been frittered into a deficit during years of growth.

    Debt to GDP isn't the relevant factor. The deficit is the relevant factor. Debt to GDP will go up if there is too big of a deficit, it will go down if there is a small enough deficit or a surplus. Look after the deficit and the debt will look after itself.
    Not again! Cue my Victor Meldrew. :smile:

    The debt AND the deficit are important. You cannot ignore either. The point is simply not debatable. You are trying to bend economic and financial reality to exactly fit a hole called "Gordon Brown is to blame for everything". It's a fool's errand and I don't know what you think is gained by it.
    Debt is relevant to the extent we pay interest on it.

    The deficit includes the interest we pay on debt.

    If there is a deficit the debt goes up, if there isn't the debt goes down.

    Ergo the deficit incorporates the debt.
    Mary had a little lamb
    Her feet were white as snow
    And everywhere that Mary went
    That lamb was sure to go.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
    But that would be offensive to countries that want to take the aid *and* hate on us.

    Next you will be saying that having "UK" stamped on the containers for aid is acceptable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    Your picture is wipe clean presumably.
    Finger smudges from picking it up and admiring it often, no doubt. Nothing more.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    Your picture is wipe clean presumably.
    You just had to go and ruin it, Olby.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wouldn’t want to be in the Chancellor’s shoes today. Anything that’s not directly related to pandemic spending is likely to be under serious review. After riding a wave of relative popularity, he’s now going to disappoint almost everyone to some degree.

    You wait until the serious tax rises come.

    I've always thought he's the most overrated politician since Tony Blair. His only reflex is to fling lots of borrowed money at every problem, and not even particularly competently at that. In the next six months we'll see if I was right or not.
    Serious tax rises would be an economically illiterate absurd idea.

    Serious tax cuts would be better.
    We have to grow ourselves out of this, sure, but we should steady the ship first - I`m not sure about tax cuts.
    The difference between 2020 and 2007 is that there is no structural deficit this time around.

    We have a deficit not because we are structurally overspending as we were in 2007 even before the GFC hit, but because there is a pandemic and the economy is depressed.

    We couldn't "grow our way out of the deficit" in 2010 as the economy was growing and the deficit was structural. That's not the case today.

    Today the deficit is entirely due to the pandemic, it is temporal not structural. Tax cuts would allow more spending and investment and allow the economy to grow which will close the deficit. Tax rises will kick the economy while its down and strangle any chance of growth.

    If in 2-3 years we see that we do actually have a structural deficit after some sustained growth then that would be the time to look at closing the deficit. Not yet, it is too premature today.
    I think what you meant to say was that the difference between 2020 and 2007 is that they can't blame it on the Labour Party.
    Cyclically adjusted borrowing in 2006 was 3.0% of GDP. In 2019 was 2.5% of GDP. That 0.5% difference is a very small number on which to claim that the entire fiscal outlook is different, especially as debt was 33% of GDP in 2006 and 87% of GDP in 2019. I have tried to educate you on this subject before...
    Of that 87% a lot of it doesn't attract interest and I'm not sure you can class it as debt if no interest is payable. I guess the issue is that liability needs to be rolled over and if QE isn't available at that point it becomes real.

    My big worry is that the west is rapidly exhausting debt monetisation and it's our generation (and our kids) that is going to be left picking up the pieces. Our parents generation won't be around to suffer from the damage that they are inflicting on the economy with the huge debt they are running up.
    I hadn't thought of the debt rollover/QE interchange but had kind of assumed that when BoE-held debt expires then the BoE could purchase some new debt to replace that which they held which has expired and it would not be considered QE?

    My understanding was that the Bank is operating to a QE limit, which was raised earlier this year, which acts kind of like the drama we get perennially from the States when they raise their debt limit. Once risen the limit is never dropped back down, so if the debt expires then they can replace that within their pre-existing limit.
    Yes it does operate on a ceiling, my point is that we're rapidly approaching the limit of QE and the Bank may need to reduce asset holdings to gain credibility with markets in the future.
    If we are rapidly approaching the limit to QE somebody needs to inform the BOE, who have agreed to buy another £150bn in gilts over the course of next year.
    Sterling is currently held in reserve and having the largest financial services industry in the world basically allows the Bank to get away with it. They're betting that neither of those changes. One of the reasons I liked Carney was that he had an outsider's view of the UK economy and that gave him an objectivity that I think Bailey lacks.

    Bailey is all upside all the time, when realistically there are huge downside risks coming in the near future.

    Even in a deal brexit and vaccine environment the UK economy has got lots of structural weaknesses related to decades of underinvestment in infrastructure by the state and businesses by corporates, a management class more interested in their individual bonus than long term company performance, unions more interested in squeezing as much from companies for their members rather than ensuring the overall health of the company and the world's most selfish pensioner class living on defined benefit schemes they pulled the ladder up for which our generation is going to end up funding through higher taxes for public sector pensions and significantly reduced dividends and capital growth in the private sector as dividends and investment will be sacrificed to keep those defined benefit schemes funded.

    Anyway, all of these things will have a severe depressive effect on trend growth in the UK and we will become a second rate economy and lose our ability to monetise debt.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
    It is indeed a great opportunity for soft displays of power at the same time as knocking this bloody thing on the head. It looks like the three most likely candidates to end up in the third world are the Oxford, Russian and Chinese efforts, so it would be great if the U.K. effort can be distributed free to poorer countries.
  • MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
    But that would be offensive to countries that want to take the aid *and* hate on us.

    Next you will be saying that having "UK" stamped on the containers for aid is acceptable.
    It would be an unconditional offer, available for everyone from North Korea to the USA. If anyone takes offense they can just say no. Or they can take it and carry on hating if thats what they want to.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:
    If only he had something more important to do
    And if he hadn't replied you'd have been first in line to lambast him as a heartless uncaring Tory toff.....
    You think that was a reply to a real letter?

    You were in marketing!


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364
    edited November 2020

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
    But that would be offensive to countries that want to take the aid *and* hate on us.

    Next you will be saying that having "UK" stamped on the containers for aid is acceptable.
    It would be an unconditional offer, available for everyone from North Korea to the USA. If anyone takes offense they can just say no. Or they can take it and carry on hating if thats what they want to.
    You don't understand - offering the Oxford vaccine would be an insult to the people shouting "Death to the "

    Their feelings are important. or something.

    In the past it has been demanded that aid has the origin taken off - bit of a problem for a government if they are trumpeting the latest Two Minutes Hate and the object of that hate is setting up a clinic round the corner.
  • Nigelb said:

    Tegnell talks realistically.

    Top epidemiologist says Sweden has no signs of herd immunity curbing coronavirus
    https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus
    Sweden's top infectious disease expert said Tuesday that the country has not seen evidence of herd immunity slowing the spread of the coronavirus in the country.

    “The issue of herd immunity is difficult,” Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist, said at a news briefing, according to Bloomberg News.

    “We see no signs of immunity in the population that are slowing down the infection right now," Tegnell said...

    ...“I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behavior enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighboring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”

    Bloomberg noted that Swedes have faced more exposure to the coronavirus than residents in other Nordic areas and data published this week showed that every third person tested in Stockholm has tested positive for antibodies.

    Meanwhile, recent lockdown in London seems to have made no difference.

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1331556653716697089
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,218

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    :smile: - The laminate lovingly protects it too. The darts just bounce off.
  • MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    Good morning

    I have sympathy with Cyclefree and her piece but the nature of this pandemic has been to devastate the hospitality and travel industry and, while help has been given, it was always going to have constraints with the huge demands from other sectors, not least the health and care sector

    With the vaccine on the horizon let us all hope that by mid 2021 these industries will see a sharp uptake in demand and begin their road to recovery

    On foreign aid I have no issue with reducing it, but as has been suggested some of the savings should be folded into the vaccine programmes to directly help third world countries with their own vaccinations

    On public sector pay freeze I support it purely on the grounds of fairness and expect mp's to lead by example. Additionally I would support abolishing the triple lock thereby freezing our own pension rise next year

    On Brexit a deal is really needed, indeed as far as I am concerned any deal, but our relationship with Europe will develop over many years and may eventually lead to 'de facto' membership and at the very least membership of the single market

    On Christmas I fail to understand why people just cannot see the safest thing is to treat this Christmas as if we are in lockdown and curtail family gatherings in the greater interest of all of us. No matter the four nations agreeing a convoluted number of rules for this year, my wife and I have already cancelled Christmas day for the 10 of us and will spend it on our own at our on home.

    Better safe than sorry

    Good post. Re freezing the wages of public sector workers, the government must gain the moral authority to do things like this by also enacting measures which extract a significant contribution to the cost of the pandemic from the relatively affluent. There are many such people in this country and many ways to do it. If the government flunk this aspect it will be a case of "same old Tories" and I predict big trouble. They got away with it last time - making the poor bear much of the pain for the collapse of the financial sector - but I don't think the trick can be repeated. Perhaps Johnson & Co realize this themselves. I hope they do. If so there will be a serious attempt to make "those with the largest shoulders bear the load" in reality rather than as platitudinous soundbite.
    Agree - good post.

    On foreign aid I am not sure that a reduction to say 0.5% would do that much harm.

    There was an interesting session on "Wealth Taxin the light of COVID" in Parliament the other day. One aspect was an attempt to brand IHT and CGT as 'wealth taxes'.

    Another was a suggestion that the amount to be raised could be £250-500bn over several years, which is a little loopy - ask Mgr Hollande.

    But enough unanimity that reform of things like Stamp Duty to a more continuous setup may be imaginable.
    Make next years foreign aid budget free Oxford vaccine to any country in the world who wants it. It would be a small reduction in the % cost, improve the effectiveness of the aid, improve UK reputation worldwide and also give the department a year to work out a plan to spend the budget more effectively for the next decade.
    But that would be offensive to countries that want to take the aid *and* hate on us.

    Next you will be saying that having "UK" stamped on the containers for aid is acceptable.
    It would be an unconditional offer, available for everyone from North Korea to the USA. If anyone takes offense they can just say no. Or they can take it and carry on hating if thats what they want to.
    You don't understand - offering the Oxford vaccine would be an insult to the people shouting "Death to the "

    Their feelings are important. or something.
    I do understand, I just think the constant culture war trolling is a bit pathetic and not very funny.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934

    Nigelb said:

    Tegnell talks realistically.

    Top epidemiologist says Sweden has no signs of herd immunity curbing coronavirus
    https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus
    Sweden's top infectious disease expert said Tuesday that the country has not seen evidence of herd immunity slowing the spread of the coronavirus in the country.

    “The issue of herd immunity is difficult,” Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist, said at a news briefing, according to Bloomberg News.

    “We see no signs of immunity in the population that are slowing down the infection right now," Tegnell said...

    ...“I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behavior enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighboring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”

    Bloomberg noted that Swedes have faced more exposure to the coronavirus than residents in other Nordic areas and data published this week showed that every third person tested in Stockholm has tested positive for antibodies.

    Meanwhile, recent lockdown in London seems to have made no difference.

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1331556653716697089
    I'd argue it is impossible to say without the counterfactual. Without them it might still be rising.
  • kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's probably been well picked over but I'm reminded it's 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was ousted by Conservative MPs after eleven and a half years in office and three GE wins.

    My recollection of the period was it was perhaps the most extraordinary in British politics - from the dismissal of Sir Geoffrey Howe which set in motion the chain of events leading to Thatcher's own demise it was completely addictive and yet not quite in the days of the 24/7 news cycle. The 60 hours from the declaration of the result of the first ballot to Thatcher telling her Cabinet she was going have been extensively covered in literature but still seem remarkable.

    Meanwhile, the backdrop was the likelihood of military action in the Gulf following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the seismic changes in Russia and Eastern Europe following the events of the previous year.

    I remember my instant reaction when someone popped into a meeting with "Thatcher's gone" - "the barstewards have finally done for her".

    Those who did not live through the whole premiership seem to view Thatcher only through the prism of Falklands/Miners Strike/Poll Tax - ignorant of her precarious early years "it was only a matter of time before a man someone more sensible/less divisive/not as shrill (delete as appropriate) replaced her" was the received wisdom.
    I way staying in a cheap backpackers in Borneo when I heard the news that Thatcher was going. In those pre Internet days, there was little news to follow there. The owner came into the hostel lounge with a shocked face and announced the news to a dozen or so of us assorted travellers, from Britain, Australia, Germany, Netherlands and France. The owner was even more shocked as the guests rose in a spontaneous cheer!
    I was at secondary school in Scotland when news of her exit broke. To say that it was well-received would be an understatement. It felt like a baleful presence had been removed from our lives. Of course we had six or seven more years of Tory rule, but it didn't weigh so heavily with Major in charge.
    My brother got the front page of a newspaper that day and framed it. It still hangs, all these years later, on his living room wall.
    Aww that's sweet, I miss her too.
    Your picture is wipe clean presumably.
    You just had to go and ruin it, Olby.
    Sorry Betty. Mind in the sewer as always.
This discussion has been closed.