So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
The government are telling people to work from home. They're telling kids to learn from home. The message is life needs to go on from home, different though that may be. If need be they can repeat the favour and find a reasonable way to campaign from home. If that means doing things differently then welcome to 2020/2021. If that means no canvassing then so be it, much like it's meant no meeting in the office, time out the classroom. The politicians can adapt like the rest of the country has had to.
But they don't need to, because they're telling us things will be much better by the spring, unless they're bullshitting us again.
Anyway, if you're going to delay it because of covid worries, I see no point in delaying it until the middle of the autumn or early winter, when there might be different covid worries even with a vaccine, when we still won't quite know what the seasonality aspects of it are.
Height of summer when virus prevalence would be at its lowest point anyway would seem more sensible to me, so a short delay if one at all.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
Another post Brexit Deal poll showing some bounce for the Tories and like Deltapoll the bounce coming from the LDs not Labour
What do you think Sunak will do to offset three lots of self- assessment payments due at the end of this month, and inside a pandemic lockdown? The polls after that event might not be so great for the Conservatives.
It's a variant of whataboutism - "X is bad, so Y (that I dislike for other reasons) is bad in the same way". You see it on the left too when Thatcher gets dragged into every conversation.
Happens with Boris a lot as well. Corbyn was, in my view, very unsuitable to be PM, but such parallels that can be made with him and Trump do not extend anywhere near that far, it's just unreasonable.
I suspect that Corbyn and his crowd would have handled the pandemic at least as well as the current mob, although they would have had to cope with a far less friendly press, so it would probably have felt worse.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Would Corbyn really have done all those vaccine deals with the evil multinational pharmaceutical companies?
I really don't know, Richard. It can only be a guess.
Boris's worst mistake was his failure to react quickly enough at the start of the outbreak. My guess is Corbyn would have done no worse and possibly quite a bit better. He would also, I think, have sacked anyone who made unauthorised trips to Barnard Castle.
Not sure about vaccine deals. I suspect he would have followed the science pretty closely but hard to say how that would have shaped into contracts with big pharma.
What makes you say that he would have sacked people? He was hardly prone to sacking people when it called for it - or even well past the point of calling for it.
His trusted lieutenant Shadow Chancellor literally called for the lynching of a female MP and that didn't get the blinking of an eye. Throughout the whole antisemitism mess he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get rid of anyone who went well beyond the pale - anyone he could keep he did.
Had it been Seumas Milne that had gone to Barnard Castle then I don't think for one second Corbyn would have sacked him.
Nobody knows, Philip, but you have to distinguish between elected representatives and appointees like Cummings. It's true though that he may have done no better than Boris in this respect even though the bar is set pretty low.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
So no chance to speak to anyone? No chance to discuss ideas? No chance to do anything but a single leaflet then its over? Then that's it for years? Sounds absolutely awful.
I don't see how that's advantageous over waiting a couple of months and then doing it properly.
I have never had any candidate discuss their idea with me for any local election. I have never seen a single debate; if they have been held they were not well-publicised. The only comms I have ever had on local elections is a leaflet and/or statements in the local press.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
Would that not give the conservatives quite an advantage though
No; you haven’t thought it through. Having a postal vote doesn’t influence your voting behaviour; insofar as there is causality (and it is much weaker than it was), that works the other way around.
Conservatives tend to turn out in higher proportions already at local elections. Insofar as an all-postal election encourages people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t, it probably favours Labour.
That happens, my ward votes Conservative at general elections but Liberal Democrat at local elections.
For example the last time it elected a Tory councillor was in May 2015 when the locals were at the same time as the general election.
So in some wards like mine all postals would help the Tories
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
So you plan to encourage canvassing between mid March and early May?
That’s... brave
No. If it means no canvassing then it means no canvassing. Do it differently like the rest of us have had to do it differently.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
So no chance to speak to anyone? No chance to discuss ideas? No chance to do anything but a single leaflet then its over? Then that's it for years? Sounds absolutely awful.
I don't see how that's advantageous over waiting a couple of months and then doing it properly.
I have never had any candidate discuss their idea with me for any local election. I have never seen a single debate; if they have been held they were not well-publicised. The only comms I have ever had on local elections is a leaflet and/or statements in the local press.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
By the end of April all over 50s are due to have been vaccinated ie the most at risk groups.
By Autumn winter flu season will be back, if we are unlucky we could be seeing mutations of the virus again which the vaccines may be less effective against etc. It makes no sense to postpone, though I agree they could be mainly postal.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
By the end of April all over 50s are due to have been vaccinated ie the most at risk groups.
By Autumn winter flu season will be back, if we are unlucky we could be seeing mutations of the virus again which the vaccines may be less effective against etc. It makes no sense to postpone, though I agree they could be mainly postal.
You are expressing your own personal hope, but it is not beyond possibility that a delay may be needed and as far as an Autumn flu season is concerned we always have our flu vaccines anyway and it did not stop GE 2019 in December
GE19 was pre Covid, we now know that by far the highest Covid caserates come in the autumn and winter, if you are going to delay the elections at most do so to June not until autumn or winter which makes no logical sense whatsover and could coincide with another Covid peak if we see another dramatic Covid mutation in the autumn.
By May all over 50s should be vaccinated, there is no reason to delay in my view. If the case rates are not falling dramatically by then despite mass vaccination then we are all screwed anyway
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
So you plan to encourage canvassing between mid March and early May?
That’s... brave
No. If it means no canvassing then it means no canvassing. Do it differently like the rest of us have had to do it differently.
You can leaflet again probably from March and I expect even canvassing will be OK from April
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
So no chance to speak to anyone? No chance to discuss ideas? No chance to do anything but a single leaflet then its over? Then that's it for years? Sounds absolutely awful.
I don't see how that's advantageous over waiting a couple of months and then doing it properly.
A friend of mine is standing as a council candidate. They've already started phone canvassing. You might have heard of telephones?
So parties with a database speaking to their own supporters. Great! That's productive. Fantastic exercise in democracy that.
Like more than a fifth of UK adults (and I believe the overwhelming majority of Millenials) we don't have a landline phone because they're absolutely redundant and pointless. I mean we have a landline cable because the internet comes through it, but there's no phone plugged into the wall - if someone wants to speak to my they can call my phone and if someone wanted to speak to my wife they can call her phone.
Cold callers wanting to speak to someone local won't find our number on a database though.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
I think people involved in political campaigning vastly overestimate how much they do and how much it matters. People can receive mailed leaflets instead, and that will replicate the experience most people have - they get something through the mailbox, then 1 in 3 of them actually vote.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
Officials and candidates I know don't seem as concerned by the prospect of holding them as people on here. That doesn't mean they must happen, but I think people are putting over emphasis on lack of door knocking - as every other aspect seems solvable. The loss of that 'opportunity' is being vastly overplayed.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
I think people involved in political campaigning vastly overestimate how much they do and how much it matters. People can receive mailed leaflets instead, and that will replicate the experience most people have - they get something through the mailbox, then 1 in 3 of them actually vote.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
For national elections it probably doesn't matter as much as people vote on national issues with national campaigns.
For local elections? Different matter entirely.
People don't go to Westminster promising to sort out the pothole on a nearby street - that is the sort of thing that sways local elections though. That is what our local democracy is about.
National elections and national campaigns boost the big parties like the Tories. It is localised campaigning that allows Independents, or Residents Associations, or the Liberal Democrats etc to flourish.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
So no chance to speak to anyone? No chance to discuss ideas? No chance to do anything but a single leaflet then its over? Then that's it for years? Sounds absolutely awful.
I don't see how that's advantageous over waiting a couple of months and then doing it properly.
I have never had any candidate discuss their idea with me for any local election. I have never seen a single debate; if they have been held they were not well-publicised. The only comms I have ever had on local elections is a leaflet and/or statements in the local press.
So because you haven't it's okay to deny everyone else the opportunity?
My point is, it's an opportunity that has rarely been used. Let me be clear, I have not avoided the parties cavassing for local elections, they have just never bothered.
PMost people don't give a shit about local elections imo*, because successive government have centralised or regulated so much the local council has little real control over anything. .
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
So no chance to speak to anyone? No chance to discuss ideas? No chance to do anything but a single leaflet then its over? Then that's it for years? Sounds absolutely awful.
I don't see how that's advantageous over waiting a couple of months and then doing it properly.
I have never had any candidate discuss their idea with me for any local election. I have never seen a single debate; if they have been held they were not well-publicised. The only comms I have ever had on local elections is a leaflet and/or statements in the local press.
So because you haven't it's okay to deny everyone else the opportunity?
My point is, it's an opportunity that has rarely been used. Let me be clear, I have not avoided the parties cavassing for local elections, they have just never bothered.
PMost people don't give a shit about local elections imo*, because successive government have centralised or regulated so much the local council has little real control over anything. .
(*Turnout figures bear that out.)
Rarely been used? I don't see how you can extrapolate your own experience to the entire population.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
Quite. The 'proper campaigning' argument is a nonsense anyway, there's no set amount of campaigning that counts as 'proper'. Even with the parties quite often they'll be one leaflet, if that, especially with the paper candidates, and nothing else. Canvassing barely happens in many places as well.
Arguing it shouldn't be risked and can wait a few more months makes more sense that complaining about the campaigning. As well as the idea they cannot speak to people during their term and thus it'll be 'years'.
Does Trump even like golf? Surely somebody who cheats as much as he does cannot have a genuine passion for it.
That's his worst sin of all. Cheating at golf is - not cricket.
Can you imagine how much our most golf loving dead Presidents - esp. Republicans Harding, Eisenhower, Reagan & W - would regard the vermin no only currently investing the White House, but also sullying "a good walk spoiled" (or visa versa).
Certainly helps explain why George W. Bush and Barack Obama NEVER liked the swine, even before he disgraced his country, violated his oath AND urged the violent overthrow of the duly-elected government of the United States.
Donald Trumpsky = Judge Smailes but without the redeeming comedic value
I seem to recall that chap who has written a book on Trump cheating at golf, in an interview linked on here, described how Clinton would cheat too, but a little and because he was bad at the game, while Trump is quite good but cheats blatantly anyway to pretend he's among the greatest every.
It my years of playing and acting in various offices I can identify many golfers who tried to get away with cheating, and in my days as handicap secretary I had great pleasure in disqualifying a fair number
What kind of cheating? "Protecting their handicap" (ie taking a dive if you aren't going to win) or worse?
I never understood that particular stupidity. Why would you pretend to be even worse that you already were?
Various forms including deliberate incorrect scoring, rule breaking without declaration, playing a wrong ball etc
Of course some were innocent but we knew those who would try to get away with it
Yikes. When I played I always preferred matchplay. With none of this handicap nonsense. If my opponent was better, well, so be it. Try harder.
Stroke play was always recognised as the test of a golf and most of the major competitions are stroke play
However, match play is still very enjoyable but played much less
Oh, I know. Holing a monster putt is much more fun when directed at your playing companion though. The Ryder Cup demonstrates that pretty well.
There's no fun in posting a decent score and then having some hacker off 24 come in later with a net 62. Hated that.
Back on to Trump's sports - I wonder if Dura Ace remembers the Tour de Trump? (yes, there was such a thing!)
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
Is that good or bad at this stage? Feels ok to me considering we're still ramping up, provided the average daily numbers keep escalating.
At this rate it would take 20 months to complete the 100m or so shots required to give the vast majority in the UK two shots but it's going to (have to) get a lot faster for sure.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
You seem to be forgetting the staff needed to stuff the envelopes with the election communication material, if we are to have an all-postal election.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
I think people involved in political campaigning vastly overestimate how much they do and how much it matters. People can receive mailed leaflets instead, and that will replicate the experience most people have - they get something through the mailbox, then 1 in 3 of them actually vote.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
For national elections it probably doesn't matter as much as people vote on national issues with national campaigns.
For local elections? Different matter entirely.
People don't go to Westminster promising to sort out the pothole on a nearby street - that is the sort of thing that sways local elections though. That is what our local democracy is about.
National elections and national campaigns boost the big parties like the Tories. It is localised campaigning that allows Independents, or Residents Associations, or the Liberal Democrats etc to flourish.
And we can ensure everyone can send out leaflets that will focus on those concerns. I don't see any reason why independents would struggle more than anyone else in that situation, in fact if it had an effect it may well be the opposite as they generally won't have as many helpers (some independents are fortunate enough to have many) going round as the parties.
Since the logistical problems are not insurmountable, the only real complaint seems to be that the parties won't be able to knock on doors. That doesn't seem a major reason to me. Those on the ground I know won't generally be outraged if there is a delay, but they'd laugh at some of these concerns.
As an aside, and this is not a reason not to delay, but there are people who want to stand down but don't feel able as they don't want their areas to be unrepresented as they cannot currently be replaced.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
You seem to be forgetting the staff needed to stuff the envelopes with the election communication material, if we are to have an all-postal election.
How's that an argument against delaying for a few months to ensure its all done properly post-vaccine rather than this stuff being effectively done in March potentially still during lockdown?
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
Quite. The 'proper campaigning' argument is a nonsense anyway, there's no set amount of campaigning that counts as 'proper'. Even with the parties quite often they'll be one leaflet, if that, especially with the paper candidates, and nothing else. Canvassing barely happens in many places as well.
Arguing it shouldn't be risked and can wait a few more months makes more sense that complaining about the campaigning. As well as the idea they cannot speak to people during their term and thus it'll be 'years'.
And local elections are not a joke.
Most voters don't vote in local elections.
That's true. You also get many uncontested seats even at principal authority level. I've seen turnout lower than 20%. It's still not a joke. Most councillors work hard and effect as much change as their limited powers allows them.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
And campaigning?
Do people go canvassing during a stay at home order?
Do people deliver leaflets while some are still self-isolating?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Delay a few months and there can be a proper election with a proper campaign in the autumn. Do it now and its going to be a joke, even more than local elections normally are.
Postal election - every candidate gets a single leaflet all sent in a single envelope alongside the forms.
In WA State with have an official state voters pamphlet, with statements submitted by candidates also for & against ballot measures. This came into existence LONG before we went all vote-by-mail for all elections.
Instead of including the voters pamphlet in same envelope as outgoing ballots, it is mailed to all postal addresses, which is actually cheaper for the state, gets it to the mailing address of all in-state voters (it's also posted on the web) AND helps notify people who are eligible but NOT registered (or have moved or on inactive list) that an election is in progress, and that they can register to vote and/or request a ballot.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
Well it was a term often used by Ben Jonson (no relation).
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
Much to my surprise in 2015 a Labour canvasser knocked at the door for the first time in 15 years, I had chat and took up the offer to meet the Labour candidate. Wished her well, but admitted I wouldn't be voting for her. tempted to photograph them canvassing Tory rival's home, but thought better of it. Earlier in the campaign, the Tory candidate knocked on the door, but was resigned to a defeat.
Can't say that I have ever met the councillors for the ward.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
I think people involved in political campaigning vastly overestimate how much they do and how much it matters. People can receive mailed leaflets instead, and that will replicate the experience most people have - they get something through the mailbox, then 1 in 3 of them actually vote.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
Officials and candidates I know don't seem as concerned by the prospect of holding them as people on here. That doesn't mean they must happen, but I think people are putting over emphasis on lack of door knocking - as every other aspect seems solvable. The loss of that 'opportunity' is being vastly overplayed.
Have the officials you know started thinking about the health and safety risk assessments of polling stations? I'm guessing not....
Does Trump even like golf? Surely somebody who cheats as much as he does cannot have a genuine passion for it.
That's his worst sin of all. Cheating at golf is - not cricket.
Can you imagine how much our most golf loving dead Presidents - esp. Republicans Harding, Eisenhower, Reagan & W - would regard the vermin no only currently investing the White House, but also sullying "a good walk spoiled" (or visa versa).
Certainly helps explain why George W. Bush and Barack Obama NEVER liked the swine, even before he disgraced his country, violated his oath AND urged the violent overthrow of the duly-elected government of the United States.
Donald Trumpsky = Judge Smailes but without the redeeming comedic value
I seem to recall that chap who has written a book on Trump cheating at golf, in an interview linked on here, described how Clinton would cheat too, but a little and because he was bad at the game, while Trump is quite good but cheats blatantly anyway to pretend he's among the greatest every.
It my years of playing and acting in various offices I can identify many golfers who tried to get away with cheating, and in my days as handicap secretary I had great pleasure in disqualifying a fair number
What kind of cheating? "Protecting their handicap" (ie taking a dive if you aren't going to win) or worse?
I never understood that particular stupidity. Why would you pretend to be even worse that you already were?
Various forms including deliberate incorrect scoring, rule breaking without declaration, playing a wrong ball etc
Of course some were innocent but we knew those who would try to get away with it
Yikes. When I played I always preferred matchplay. With none of this handicap nonsense. If my opponent was better, well, so be it. Try harder.
Stroke play was always recognised as the test of a golf and most of the major competitions are stroke play
However, match play is still very enjoyable but played much less
Oh, I know. Holing a monster putt is much more fun when directed at your playing companion though. The Ryder Cup demonstrates that pretty well.
There's no fun in posting a decent score and then having some hacker off 24 come in later with a net 62. Hated that.
Back on to Trump's sports - I wonder if Dura Ace remembers the Tour de Trump? (yes, there was such a thing!)
Tour de Trump? It's an event involving Stormy Daniels, I guess.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
I do.
Plus people don't realise how much elections like these are won by hard work and GOTV.
What is the date for this? If it's recent it's bizarre as many of the regions who feel dissatisfied with the direction of travel voted for the people in charge of it all while Londoners didn't! Maybe Londoners are just less moany than other people. Aren't all the Brexity areas happy now? What else do they want?
Much to my surprise in 2015 a Labour canvasser knocked at the door for the first time in 15 years, I had chat and took up the offer to meet the Labour candidate. Wished her well, but admitted I wouldn't be voting for her. tempted to photograph them canvassing Tory rival's home, but thought better of it. Earlier in the campaign, the Tory candidate knocked on the door, but was resigned to a defeat.
Can't say that I have ever met the councillors for the ward.
One of the most frustrating comments in politics is 'well no one has ever knocked on my door, ho ho ho'.
When the reality is they have probably had several callers. I'd say I'm happy if about 2/10 people answer the door in any one trip.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
The Colin Lucas 'quote' Johnson made up?
Correct.
Boris's blunders
The made-up quotes As a 23-year-old Times trainee Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace. He quoted an Oxford historian, Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed a nobleman of the time and rumoured to have been the king's lover. He was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Lucas worried for his academic reputation and told the Times he did not say this. Trying to repair the matter but instead making it worse, Johnson wrote a follow-up which included another quote from Lucas, also denied by the academic. Johnson was sacked by the Times editor at the time, Charles Wilson.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
The Colin Lucas 'quote' Johnson made up?
Correct.
Boris's blunders
The made-up quotes As a 23-year-old Times trainee Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace. He quoted an Oxford historian, Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed a nobleman of the time and rumoured to have been the king's lover. He was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Lucas worried for his academic reputation and told the Times he did not say this. Trying to repair the matter but instead making it worse, Johnson wrote a follow-up which included another quote from Lucas, also denied by the academic. Johnson was sacked by the Times editor at the time, Charles Wilson.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
Another post Brexit Deal poll showing some bounce for the Tories and like Deltapoll the bounce coming from the LDs not Labour
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
There are definitely logistical issues, it would not necessarily be easy. What is objectionable is the cavalier approach some are taking on delaying some now for a period of 16-18 months since they were supposed to be held, sometimes itself on the basis of a lack of understanding of the logistics and assuming that none of them can be mitigated (such as issues around counts and polling places), when work has been ongoing and is ongoing to so mitigate them.
Nominations does raise additional issues, and if we are still in lockdown in a few months, as may be the case, the strength for delay is strengthened, but it would be wrong to imply those who would prefer they be on time know nothing of logistics and those who don't do, as the responses are more varied than that.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
If people can do their shopping at the supermarket, they can manage to vote at a polling station.
Manning them would be VERY difficult.
Not necessarily. A lot of volunteers are elderly and will have been vaccinated by May. Places with multiple stations per place just halve the number, and spread it over 2 days.
These are just spitballing ideas, there'll be more to it, but those I know in elections don't seem hugely worried about the logistics of preparing for May at present.
Those I know in elections are all talking about how long the delay will be....
Cabinet office will deny until an announcement is made. But I'd say chances of May elections are sub 5% at present.
Delaying the elections would require primary legislation.
I wonder if their Lordships might push back on delaying again the 2020 local elections?
Provision of the Public Health rules?
Bollocks
Get a postal vote mate
Postal votes won't help.
You'll still need to leave the house to apply for one and then send it out.
The big problem with holding the elections before enough people are vaccinated is having enough people at the polling stations and counts.
We had a General Election in December just over a year ago.
I don't see why we can't have locals in the autumn if vaccine rollout is due to be done by then.
Because by that time some elected posts will have been waiting 18 months for the election. Which means in the case of our police commissioner we will have had an unelected appointed official doing the job for over 2 years.
And in World War II we went a decade between elections.
Four to Six months doesn't seem long to wait. Like WWII we don't necessarily need to wait until everything is completely eliminated, especially overseas, but until its safe in this country seems smart to do.
We have enough time to organise an all-postal ballot election. No need for people to apply for a postal ballot. Just mail them all out, and hold the elections without repeating delays.
I have no strong views on May's elections but it is not unreasonable to expect they could be delayed to the Autumn, the word being 'could'
And I have a postal vote anyway
We delayed elections once already, last spring. That was fair enough, because we were caught by surprise, and everyone had more important things to do.
This time we had plenty of time to develop contingency plans. Elections are important, not a distraction to be swept aside. We should be making the effort to work out how best to hold them.
Precisely this. They are important, not trivial. Ok if an argument is to be made that it simply cannot be risked, but people are arguing on the grounds of it not mattering or of mild convenience. None of the staff I know are desperate for them to be delayed (though they won't mind if they are), so they seem confident they can do it properly.
They can count properly? That I wouldn't be surprised by.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
I think people involved in political campaigning vastly overestimate how much they do and how much it matters. People can receive mailed leaflets instead, and that will replicate the experience most people have - they get something through the mailbox, then 1 in 3 of them actually vote.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
Officials and candidates I know don't seem as concerned by the prospect of holding them as people on here. That doesn't mean they must happen, but I think people are putting over emphasis on lack of door knocking - as every other aspect seems solvable. The loss of that 'opportunity' is being vastly overplayed.
Have the officials you know started thinking about the health and safety risk assessments of polling stations? I'm guessing not....
Bring your own pencil.
Though tbh I'll be opting for a postal vote if it proceeds.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
10 nominations is no great difficulty, the government assures us that by mid February all over 70s should be vaccinated after which the caserate should fall significantly.
Some of those newly vaccinated over 70s can then sign the forms, most local parties as we do just get members to sign
What is the date for this? If it's recent it's bizarre as many of the regions who feel dissatisfied with the direction of travel voted for the people in charge of it all while Londoners didn't! Maybe Londoners are just less moany than other people. Aren't all the Brexity areas happy now? What else do they want?
I think this kind of question has a lot of inertia.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
I do.
Plus people don't realise how much elections like these are won by hard work and GOTV.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
There are definitely logistical issues, it would not necessarily be easy. What is objectionable is the cavalier approach some are taking on delaying some now for a period of 16-18 months since they were supposed to be held, sometimes itself on the basis of a lack of understanding of the logistics and assuming that none of them can be mitigated (such as issues around counts and polling places), when work has been ongoing and is ongoing to so mitigate them.
Nominations does raise additional issues, and if we are still in lockdown in a few months, as may be the case, the strength for delay is strengthened, but it would be wrong to imply those who would prefer they be on time know nothing of logistics and those who don't do, as the responses are more varied than that.
Nuance is everything, of course.
The democratic deficit created by not having elections is not something I'd choose either. But to be honest there are precedents for these things. Public clamour for local elections isn't massive.
If it were up to me, to solve the problem of the democratic deficit, and the pandemic, I would do this:
1) Hold local by elections but have them all postal - these are frequently created by the death or moving away of a candidate and result in real problems in that electors are not represented.
2) Push everything else off for a few months - all those sitting elected officials were elected and are still representing their electors. Which realistically means September or October, I think, for all but important by elections.
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
I do.
Plus people don't realise how much elections like these are won by hard work and GOTV.
A single leaflet ain't going to do it.
It does for most elections. You're kidding yourself if you think most places have lots of leaflets and GOTV work going on. Oh, it happens, but it's not as prevalent as party members think, even when they do some work. We all know people who won despite doing very little, if anything. You can think anyone objecting doesn't know how elections work, but it's more complicated than that.
Note, however, how the arguments have moved from the logistics of holding the elections to the logistics of campaigning for the elections - which is fair enough, as the latter is more problematic and not an unreasonable argument for delay.
But its because the logistics of holding them is not as difficult as some people, who presumably 'understand the logistics of elections', hadsuggested. People have been working hard for months to make it so.
So it's not a case of whether they can be held - they can - but whether they should. That's a lively debate, but it's not as impossible or unreasonable as first suggested.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
The Colin Lucas 'quote' Johnson made up?
Correct.
Boris's blunders
The made-up quotes As a 23-year-old Times trainee Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace. He quoted an Oxford historian, Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed a nobleman of the time and rumoured to have been the king's lover. He was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Lucas worried for his academic reputation and told the Times he did not say this. Trying to repair the matter but instead making it worse, Johnson wrote a follow-up which included another quote from Lucas, also denied by the academic. Johnson was sacked by the Times editor at the time, Charles Wilson.
Yes, I think that is a good one, and very obviously what has happened. People think where there is smoke there is fire, so even though in court challenges Trump did not usually allege anything as much as he said in public, his catamites in Congress would then say 'Lots of people are worried about these allegations, we must look into it'.
Gave that a like, principally for a good use of the excellent word, ‘catamite’.
Must be wonderful to be able to insult people with words they have to look up.
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
I mentioned on here last week I had called Boris Johnson a political catamite of the Brexit Right.
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
The Colin Lucas 'quote' Johnson made up?
Correct.
Boris's blunders
The made-up quotes As a 23-year-old Times trainee Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace. He quoted an Oxford historian, Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed a nobleman of the time and rumoured to have been the king's lover. He was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Lucas worried for his academic reputation and told the Times he did not say this. Trying to repair the matter but instead making it worse, Johnson wrote a follow-up which included another quote from Lucas, also denied by the academic. Johnson was sacked by the Times editor at the time, Charles Wilson.
Much to my surprise in 2015 a Labour canvasser knocked at the door for the first time in 15 years, I had chat and took up the offer to meet the Labour candidate. Wished her well, but admitted I wouldn't be voting for her. tempted to photograph them canvassing Tory rival's home, but thought better of it. Earlier in the campaign, the Tory candidate knocked on the door, but was resigned to a defeat.
Can't say that I have ever met the councillors for the ward.
One of the most frustrating comments in politics is 'well no one has ever knocked on my door, ho ho ho'.
When the reality is they have probably had several callers. I'd say I'm happy if about 2/10 people answer the door in any one trip.
65% of people never bother to vote in local elections anyway and if you do knock them up too much they then complain you are disturbing them when they are watching Corrie, eating dinner, getting the kids to bed etc.
So less than 50% want to postpone the elections then.
Plus moving it from the Spring, by which time most of the most vulnerable to Covid will be vaccinated, to the autumn as we start flu season again is not a great idea.
You can also have early voting and postal voting too as the US did last year
I don't often agree with HYUFD but yeah, come on, we need to get these elections done to the original timetable. We can't simultaneously have governments talking about better things by the spring because of vaccination but also cancelling May elections. Unless they're really saying there's not a cat's chance in hell of anything being vaguely close to normal by May, in which case they ought to be saying that now.
Commit to it now and put out a big campaign to get everyone who is uncomfortable at the thought registered for a postal vote, and consider the possibility of maybe splitting in-person voting over two days or something.
So you plan to encourage canvassing between mid March and early May?
That’s... brave
No. If it means no canvassing then it means no canvassing. Do it differently like the rest of us have had to do it differently.
Restricting the information people have is more of an affront to democracy than a 4 month delay
The BBC can broadcast a Manchester debate to Manchester people and a London debate to London people, as it does with the local news programmes. These are not insurmountable problems.
By my reckoning there's over 7,500 council seats up election this year in England alone, I'm not sure your plan will be able to cover every contest, because if you only allow some candidates airtime and not all then that's not permissible to ensure a fair contest.
In the main, the people who want to 'get on with it' don't understand the logistics of elections.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
There are definitely logistical issues, it would not necessarily be easy. What is objectionable is the cavalier approach some are taking on delaying some now for a period of 16-18 months since they were supposed to be held, sometimes itself on the basis of a lack of understanding of the logistics and assuming that none of them can be mitigated (such as issues around counts and polling places), when work has been ongoing and is ongoing to so mitigate them.
Nominations does raise additional issues, and if we are still in lockdown in a few months, as may be the case, the strength for delay is strengthened, but it would be wrong to imply those who would prefer they be on time know nothing of logistics and those who don't do, as the responses are more varied than that.
When is the nomination deadline?
If restrictions are likely to be in place until March then that could take us past the point of the nomination deadline, even if counting in May is OK.
An election is about more than just counting. A few months wait to have a proper election seems a no-brainer to me as being much more democratic.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
In GB terms the Tories are down 3.6% since the GE.
I rather think this is the key paragraph in that article - "There will always be cults, fanatics and demagogues; political parties are always vulnerable to capture. That’s why we need constitutions, written or unwritten. That’s why we should value established institutions and the rule of law. That’s why we must do everything to preserve our independent judiciaries and impartial civil services. In the taming of Trump, America has taught us all an invaluable lesson."
And that it is addressed at some of his former colleagues in Parliament here.
That, of course, is absolutely right. But it's not only supporters of far left and far right that need to remember it - very few governments entirely resist the temptation to have a pop at the judiciary, though they stop short of the blatantly political appointments that seem to be common practice in the US.
Isn't this a predictable response to "judicial activism"? Imagine a democratically elected government unable to implement its manifesto because a judge says No. Actually, don't imagine it, just watch it happen in the USA.
Just concentrate on the vaccine numbers. They are much more cheerful.
Did they announce a figure today?
Total vaccinated today is 2,431k, up 145k on yesterday. Which is considerably less than the 200k per day Hancock claimed at the weekend. So at that rate, assuming they are working 7 days, it will be 1,015k per week and we would get to about 6m by mid-Feb. But presumably the rate will increase....
Anecdotally there are clearly some practices using their vaccine and staff to do the originally promised second doses to some of the elderly. Which may reduce the number of new vaccinations being done
I am sure pb.com will be pleased to know the whining Baroness Bakewell has her second.
And she is now taking the Govt to court "on behalf of those waiting to have a second Pfizer Vaccine."
Of course, she is not using her own money, you can crowdfund her legal challenge -- should you feel so inclined.
A silly self-entitled women.
Bakewell watchers will know that the other thing she regular gets exercised about is any suggestion people living in huge mansions in North London should pay any more tax. She was apoplectic about the idea of a Mansion Tax.
I sometimes wonder why Baroness Bakewell of Stockport is in the Labour Party.
I'd rather a Bakewell tart.
At one stage, she was known as "the thinking man's crumpet"..if that whets your appetite.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
In GB terms the Tories are down 3.6% since the GE.
They're getting a vaccine bounce. It changes the whole narrative for them from out of control to in control, especially if the vaccine rollout is seen to move faster here than elsewhere. It could push quite a bit of the damage incurred from Brexit-related supply and business issues a couple of months into the future, if and when restrictions are lifted. For now the virus is the main story, and the vaccine, rolled out faster elsewhere, has arguably the main headline of it.
Comments
But they don't need to, because they're telling us things will be much better by the spring, unless they're bullshitting us again.
Anyway, if you're going to delay it because of covid worries, I see no point in delaying it until the middle of the autumn or early winter, when there might be different covid worries even with a vaccine, when we still won't quite know what the seasonality aspects of it are.
Height of summer when virus prevalence would be at its lowest point anyway would seem more sensible to me, so a short delay if one at all.
@eek's idea is absolutely fine.
Can the campaign be held properly? That's a different matter.
Just counting ballots done entirely on national televised campaigns cutting out the entire local factor from local issues I don't see how that's advantageous?
The big gainers from holding it in May I expect would be the Tories and Labour, so possibly it will go ahead. Cut out the local campaigning and you're cutting away the local independents, the Liberal Democrats and the assorted groups and individuals that are part of what makes local elections interesting.
For example the last time it elected a Tory councillor was in May 2015 when the locals were at the same time as the general election.
So in some wards like mine all postals would help the Tories
By May all over 50s should be vaccinated, there is no reason to delay in my view. If the case rates are not falling dramatically by then despite mass vaccination then we are all screwed anyway
Like more than a fifth of UK adults (and I believe the overwhelming majority of Millenials) we don't have a landline phone because they're absolutely redundant and pointless. I mean we have a landline cable because the internet comes through it, but there's no phone plugged into the wall - if someone wants to speak to my they can call my phone and if someone wanted to speak to my wife they can call her phone.
Cold callers wanting to speak to someone local won't find our number on a database though.
I still don't know why they didn't delay the 2021 elections a year but run the 2020 ones at least, as those really do need doing and it reduces the risk of trying so many elections all at once.
I'm surprised you think the Tories would be gainers.
Officials and candidates I know don't seem as concerned by the prospect of holding them as people on here. That doesn't mean they must happen, but I think people are putting over emphasis on lack of door knocking - as every other aspect seems solvable. The loss of that 'opportunity' is being vastly overplayed.
For local elections? Different matter entirely.
People don't go to Westminster promising to sort out the pothole on a nearby street - that is the sort of thing that sways local elections though. That is what our local democracy is about.
National elections and national campaigns boost the big parties like the Tories. It is localised campaigning that allows Independents, or Residents Associations, or the Liberal Democrats etc to flourish.
PMost people don't give a shit about local elections imo*, because successive government have centralised or regulated so much the local council has little real control over anything. .
(*Turnout figures bear that out.)
Once had gf who said I was solipsistic. Wasn't till I got home and checked it out that I knew I wasn't getting a second date.
There's no fun in posting a decent score and then having some hacker off 24 come in later with a net 62. Hated that.
Back on to Trump's sports - I wonder if Dura Ace remembers the Tour de Trump? (yes, there was such a thing!)
A prize for why Boris Johnson is forever associated with catamites?
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Is that good or bad at this stage? Feels ok to me considering we're still ramping up, provided the average daily numbers keep escalating.
At this rate it would take 20 months to complete the 100m or so shots required to give the vast majority in the UK two shots but it's going to (have to) get a lot faster for sure.
Since the logistical problems are not insurmountable, the only real complaint seems to be that the parties won't be able to knock on doors. That doesn't seem a major reason to me. Those on the ground I know won't generally be outraged if there is a delay, but they'd laugh at some of these concerns.
As an aside, and this is not a reason not to delay, but there are people who want to stand down but don't feel able as they don't want their areas to be unrepresented as they cannot currently be replaced.
Instead of including the voters pamphlet in same envelope as outgoing ballots, it is mailed to all postal addresses, which is actually cheaper for the state, gets it to the mailing address of all in-state voters (it's also posted on the web) AND helps notify people who are eligible but NOT registered (or have moved or on inactive list) that an election is in progress, and that they can register to vote and/or request a ballot.
Here is one for you.
PCC candidates need 100 nominations.
It all has to be on the same paper form (albeit multiple pages)
These nominations have be hand signed by the elector, usually after some cajoling as nominations are public domain.
Local council candidates need 10 nominations.
There are over 7500 council seats, and individuals cannot nominate candidates from different parties.
You see the problems?
That didn't get much remarked upon if so.
Can't say that I have ever met the councillors for the ward.
Plus people don't realise how much elections like these are won by hard work and GOTV.
A single leaflet ain't going to do it.
When the reality is they have probably had several callers. I'd say I'm happy if about 2/10 people answer the door in any one trip.
Boris's blunders
The made-up quotes As a 23-year-old Times trainee Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace. He quoted an Oxford historian, Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed a nobleman of the time and rumoured to have been the king's lover. He was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Lucas worried for his academic reputation and told the Times he did not say this. Trying to repair the matter but instead making it worse, Johnson wrote a follow-up which included another quote from Lucas, also denied by the academic. Johnson was sacked by the Times editor at the time, Charles Wilson.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/25/boris-johnson-eddie-mair-interview
What's my prize?
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1349091806944911363?s=20
It’s Refuk taking nota voters from LD/G
Nominations does raise additional issues, and if we are still in lockdown in a few months, as may be the case, the strength for delay is strengthened, but it would be wrong to imply those who would prefer they be on time know nothing of logistics and those who don't do, as the responses are more varied than that.
Though tbh I'll be opting for a postal vote if it proceeds.
Some of those newly vaccinated over 70s can then sign the forms, most local parties as we do just get members to sign
The democratic deficit created by not having elections is not something I'd choose either. But to be honest there are precedents for these things. Public clamour for local elections isn't massive.
If it were up to me, to solve the problem of the democratic deficit, and the pandemic, I would do this:
1) Hold local by elections but have them all postal - these are frequently created by the death or moving away of a candidate and result in real problems in that electors are not represented.
2) Push everything else off for a few months - all those sitting elected officials were elected and are still representing their electors. Which realistically means September or October, I think, for all but important by elections.
Note, however, how the arguments have moved from the logistics of holding the elections to the logistics of campaigning for the elections - which is fair enough, as the latter is more problematic and not an unreasonable argument for delay.
But its because the logistics of holding them is not as difficult as some people, who presumably 'understand the logistics of elections', hadsuggested. People have been working hard for months to make it so.
So it's not a case of whether they can be held - they can - but whether they should. That's a lively debate, but it's not as impossible or unreasonable as first suggested.
Q: Did you hear that the Egyptian tomb they recently opened was stuffed full of wafer, nuts, and chocolate?
A: Archaeologists think it was Pharaoh Rocher.
NEW THREAD
If restrictions are likely to be in place until March then that could take us past the point of the nomination deadline, even if counting in May is OK.
An election is about more than just counting. A few months wait to have a proper election seems a no-brainer to me as being much more democratic.
Another great poll for Boris. James O'Brien and his merry band of nutjobs won't be happy. I think if you'd said the Tories would be close to no change over 12 months on from the election they would have bitten your hand off.
In GB terms the Tories are down 3.6% since the GE.
They're getting a vaccine bounce. It changes the whole narrative for them from out of control to in control, especially if the vaccine rollout is seen to move faster here than elsewhere. It could push quite a bit of the damage incurred from Brexit-related supply and business issues a couple of months into the future, if and when restrictions are lifted. For now the virus is the main story, and the vaccine, rolled out faster elsewhere, has arguably the main headline of it.