No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
What could change things quite radically is if in 2024 Starmer does well enough outside of Scotland to be invited to form a minority UK government and then puts forward a social-democratic programme that non-Tory voters in Scotland would generally have sympathy with, only for the SNP to bring down that government in the cause of secession. A second 2024 GE conducted in those circumstances would be interesting.
SNP supporters here, for all their bravado, prefer to gloss over what happened in a similar scenario in 1979.
I think that 1979 was rather a long time ago!
The other point here is somethijng that people seem to keep forgetting. The SNP won't be voting on "English" matters under EVEL even were they to go against their own doctrine. So if SKS needs the SNP vote for a HoC majortity, things will get very difficult very quickly anyway with Mr Gove or whoever a de facto English Prime Minister at the same time as SKS is PM of the UK.
Hi Carnyx
Leaving aside the fact the SNP take a very broad interpretation of ‘matters affecting Scotland,’ don’t you think they would vote to actively support a Labour government in that scenario because (a) it would otherwise see the return of a Tory government which they would not regard as being in Scotland’s interests and (b) there would be no better way of pissing off the one remaining major unionist party, thereby making independence more likely?
A true "Unionist" (as opposed to an English Nationalist) would not object if England's wishes were occasionally over-ruled by votes including the other nations of the UK. Scottish "Unionists" don't mind when it is the other way around.
So, are you suggesting that the Tories should as a point of principle take this quietly as the price of Unionism?
Because if so, I have an altogether more jaundiced view of them than you do
Alastair - I agree. At the time, I had no clue why he was mocked for that statement. It was clear. My only criticism is that it is incomplete. There are two additional categories - things we know that are in fact wrong, and the unknowable.
He was mocked because his statement required thinking to parse.
What about the unknown knowns? I'd like to know about those.
They are the black swan surprises that come from left field - Covid is a great example.
I'd say Covid is an unknown unknown, since nobody knew about it and nobody realised it would shake governments. Perhaps climate change is an unknown known; it is a known but many politicians act as though it does not affect government decisions. The unknown part would be that they were unaware it would blow them off course. Many still are.
I have always viewed Covid as a Known Unknown. Everyone knew (or at least should have known) there was another pandemic just waiting out there to come and wreck everything - it was inevitable. What we didn't know is exactly when it would happen or how severe it would be. In the end we were pretty lucky with the second as it turns out to have been one of the milder possible plagues that has caused us such problems. It really could have been far far worse.
Another Known Unknown which we really should be taking more seriously is another Carrington event. It is only a matter of time - and judging from the historic record probably short time - before we get another full on blast from the sun and the consequences if we are not prepared will make this virus look like a sniffle in terms of its economic, political and social impacts. We need our governments to take these things far more seriously and be far more prepared than we are at the moment for global crisis.
Monbiot wrote an article about precautions that should be taken for a Carrington Event.
I can see the apologia scratched onto walls now - "Who could possibly have foreseen that this might happen?" - Lots of people, but you didn't listen to them...
In both cases though you don't know when they will occur. It's like trying to predict when the next big major earthquake in California will be - we know there will be one but will it be tomorrow or in 40 years time.
In all these cases they at best known unknowns but I would argue that Covid is far further towards the unknown unknown side of things as while you there will be a pandemic you can't predict what type it will be and how you will need to handle it.
Whether some Londoners just move to the suburbs or move further out to Southern and Eastern market towns and small cities could certainly affect the next election. The former are shifting Labour anyway but it is gains in the latter Labour need to form a government
I don’t think your opening statement is reflected in that poll. What it shows is that a plurality of voters would not vote to rejoin. You can’t get anything else out of that data,
"We gambled away £11.8 million: it’s time to make the betting industry pay A group of 30 people, from all walks of life, want tougher regulation to save others from the same fate" (£)
I've not read this paywalled article but some of the current proposals are dangerous for ordinary punters, in particular the proposed limit of losses to £200 a month. Where the betting industry might be hoist by its own petard is in its expansion from games of skill (such as betting on horses, football and politics) to games of chance like cartoon races and FOBTs. It is the latter that are more addictive, have led to increased losses for out-of-control gamblers, and increased profits for the bookmaking chains.
Johns Hopkins University statistics are to be questioned but a Russian State Propaganda unit think piece is “interesting”. I sometimes wonder if Malc is actually in an office block somewhere in St Petersburg.
You obviously know little of Scotland, did you spot the author of the article, that well known Russian "Tommy Sheridan" MSP.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
I believe there are many voters who vote SNP for Holyrood who can be persuaded to support Labour for Westminster. The 2017 GE provided evidence of that.
What could change things quite radically is if in 2024 Starmer does well enough outside of Scotland to be invited to form a minority UK government and then puts forward a social-democratic programme that non-Tory voters in Scotland would generally have sympathy with, only for the SNP to bring down that government in the cause of secession. A second 2024 GE conducted in those circumstances would be interesting.
SNP supporters here, for all their bravado, prefer to gloss over what happened in a similar scenario in 1979.
I think that 1979 was rather a long time ago!
The other point here is somethijng that people seem to keep forgetting. The SNP won't be voting on "English" matters under EVEL even were they to go against their own doctrine. So if SKS needs the SNP vote for a HoC majortity, things will get very difficult very quickly anyway with Mr Gove or whoever a de facto English Prime Minister at the same time as SKS is PM of the UK.
Hi Carnyx
Leaving aside the fact the SNP take a very broad interpretation of ‘matters affecting Scotland,’ don’t you think they would vote to actively support a Labour government in that scenario because (a) it would otherwise see the return of a Tory government which they would not regard as being in Scotland’s interests and (b) there would be no better way of pissing off the one remaining major unionist party, thereby making independence more likely?
A true "Unionist" (as opposed to an English Nationalist) would not object if England's wishes were occasionally over-ruled by votes including the other nations of the UK. Scottish "Unionists" don't mind when it is the other way around.
Indeed.
I would have no problem if the Tories are largest party in a hung parliament at the next general election but Starmer becomes PM as Labour + SNP have more MPs than Tories + DUP. That is very possible on current polls and thus 2024 could be the first general election England has not got the party in government it voted for since February 1974.
I obviously hope for a Tory majority but as a Unionist I have to accept that England cannot always get its own way. However I would hope such a UK result leads to an English Parliament or regional assemblies and we finally settle the West Lothian question
What about the unknown knowns? I'd like to know about those.
They are the black swan surprises that come from left field - Covid is a great example.
I'd say Covid is an unknown unknown, since nobody knew about it and nobody realised it would shake governments. Perhaps climate change is an unknown known; it is a known but many politicians act as though it does not affect government decisions. The unknown part would be that they were unaware it would blow them off course. Many still are.
I have always viewed Covid as a Known Unknown. Everyone knew (or at least should have known) there was another pandemic just waiting out there to come and wreck everything - it was inevitable. What we didn't know is exactly when it would happen or how severe it would be. In the end we were pretty lucky with the second as it turns out to have been one of the milder possible plagues that has caused us such problems. It really could have been far far worse.
Another Known Unknown which we really should be taking more seriously is another Carrington event. It is only a matter of time - and judging from the historic record probably short time - before we get another full on blast from the sun and the consequences if we are not prepared will make this virus look like a sniffle in terms of its economic, political and social impacts. We need our governments to take these things far more seriously and be far more prepared than we are at the moment for global crisis.
Monbiot wrote an article about precautions that should be taken for a Carrington Event.
I can see the apologia scratched onto walls now - "Who could possibly have foreseen that this might happen?" - Lots of people, but you didn't listen to them...
In both cases though you don't know when they will occur. It's like trying to predict when the next big major earthquake in California will be - we know there will be one but will it be tomorrow or in 40 years time.
In all these cases they at best known unknowns but I would argue that Covid is far further towards the unknown unknown side of things as while you there will be a pandemic you can't predict what type it will be and how you will need to handle it.
Anyone interested in this field, I'd recommend some of Andy Stirling's work, essentially on the epistemology of risk.
"We gambled away £11.8 million: it’s time to make the betting industry pay A group of 30 people, from all walks of life, want tougher regulation to save others from the same fate" (£)
I've not read this paywalled article but some of the current proposals are dangerous for ordinary punters, in particular the proposed limit of losses to £200 a month. Where the betting industry might be hoist by its own petard is in its expansion from games of skill (such as betting on horses, football and politics) to games of chance like cartoon races and FOBTs. It is the latter that are more addictive, have led to increased losses for out-of-control gamblers, and increased profits for the bookmaking chains.
£200 / month...is that a typo? Online poker would be finished if that was the case.
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
I don’t think your opening statement is reflected in that poll. What it shows is that a plurality of voters would not vote to rejoin. You can’t get anything else out of that data,
It's well known that a 52/48 split means that an issue is settled and of no further political relevance.
Full time WFH if possible. For the majory of the last 15 years it's been rare for my entire team to be in the same timezone, let alone the same office.
I know of one company in my industry that has already let its expensive office space in the city go.
It has hired smaller, cheaper premises for meetings
My employer has dropped pretty strong hints to its workforce that things will never go back to the way they were.
This is change that myself and my team willingly embrace but London and other towns with substantial office presence are going to take a hit even after this is over.
I know WFH isn't for everyone but there are a good number of us who are willing and able to do so, and who want to be in regions that have - traditionally - haemorrhaged what you would call the professional classes. If we are to rebalance the UK then WFH must be an important element to that and should be encouraged. I’d even go as far as saying that we should consider lower employer’s national insurance rates for the home based.
Another clown that did not look at who author was, bigoted Little Englander's who can see no further than their noses
Perhaps you are un-aware of the their methodology. They pay local politicians/notables in various countries large amounts of money to write for them. The catch is that, like the other Russian propaganda mills, the content is edited to match Russian state propaganda objectives.
This is why decent people wouldn't touch them with a stick.
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
Neither. They would carry on regardless and blame a computer system if anyone asked, before insisting that the money was still repaid.
And we know this because it's happened twice in the last 25 years, and on one occasion the responsible minister ultimately went on to be PM.
I don’t think your opening statement is reflected in that poll. What it shows is that a plurality of voters would not vote to rejoin. You can’t get anything else out of that data,
It's well known that a 52/48 split means that an issue is settled and of no further political relevance.
Ooops, William, your Eurosceptic critics will take that as an admission.
Full time WFH if possible. For the majory of the last 15 years it's been rare for my entire team to be in the same timezone, let alone the same office.
I know of one company in my industry that has already let its expensive office space in the city go.
It has hired smaller, cheaper premises for meetings
My employer has dropped pretty strong hints to its workforce that things will never go back to the way they were.
This is change that myself and my team willingly embrace but London and other towns with substantial office presence are going to take a hit even after this is over.
I know WFH isn't for everyone but there are a good number of us who are willing and able to do so, and who want to be in regions that have - traditionally - haemorrhaged what you would call the professional classes. If we are to rebalance the UK then WFH must be an important element to that and should be encouraged. I’d even go as far as saying that we should consider lower employer’s national insurance rates for the home based.
If WFH is here to stay, as a major component of work... a serious issue is the transference of the cost of offices from the employer to the employed.
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
May as well blame Williamson - he seems to soak it up.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
If you wanted to really throw in an unknown unknown - what if evidence emerged after Biden's inauguration that Trump HAD been robbed in the electoral college? (I know. I know....they would have to have done a brilliant job in both doing it and suppressing the discovery of it. But put on your thriller screenwriter's hat.)
You'd have an extraordinary political rift within the US. And a President with no authority, facing daily demands he hand the White House back to Trump. Those storming Congress would be seen by many as actually being the patriots they professed to be (albeit, not that they had anything to go on at the time other than gut feeling...)
If you were running a Moscow bot factory, imagine the fun.... Meanwhile, the US would be paralysed. With Trump on the media, fired up by righteous anger.
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
Isn't the Post Office scandal similar enough?
I was thinking of tax credits, actually. Which was pretty near identical.
"We gambled away £11.8 million: it’s time to make the betting industry pay A group of 30 people, from all walks of life, want tougher regulation to save others from the same fate" (£)
I've not read this paywalled article but some of the current proposals are dangerous for ordinary punters, in particular the proposed limit of losses to £200 a month. Where the betting industry might be hoist by its own petard is in its expansion from games of skill (such as betting on horses, football and politics) to games of chance like cartoon races and FOBTs. It is the latter that are more addictive, have led to increased losses for out-of-control gamblers, and increased profits for the bookmaking chains.
£200 / month...is that a typo? Online poker would be finished if that was the case.
I do wonder how it would work - the industry would just move offshore again while ways and means would be created to bypass things.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
"We gambled away £11.8 million: it’s time to make the betting industry pay A group of 30 people, from all walks of life, want tougher regulation to save others from the same fate" (£)
I've not read this paywalled article but some of the current proposals are dangerous for ordinary punters, in particular the proposed limit of losses to £200 a month. Where the betting industry might be hoist by its own petard is in its expansion from games of skill (such as betting on horses, football and politics) to games of chance like cartoon races and FOBTs. It is the latter that are more addictive, have led to increased losses for out-of-control gamblers, and increased profits for the bookmaking chains.
£200 / month...is that a typo? Online poker would be finished if that was the case.
Yes. To be fair, other figures have been bandied about and I think the Gambling Commission was (originally) talking about a trigger for intervention rather than freezing accounts. But yes, normal, skilled punting would be rendered impracticable if the more extreme measures are adopted.
If you wanted to really throw in an unknown unknown - what if evidence emerged after Biden's inauguration that Trump HAD been robbed in the electoral college? (I know. I know....they would have to have done a brilliant job in both doing it and suppressing the discovery of it. But put on your thriller screenwriter's hat.)
You'd have an extraordinary political rift within the US. And a President with no authority, facing daily demands he hand the White House back to Trump. Those storming Congress would be seen by many as actually being the patriots they professed to be (albeit, not that they had anything to go on at the time other than gut feeling...)
If you were running a Moscow bot factory, imagine the fun.... Meanwhile, the US would be paralysed. With Trump on the media, fired up by righteous anger.
(OK, maybe that's enough hat-wearing....)
Altogether more likely voter fraud will be uncovered that tipped a close state (e.g. North Carolina) to the Republicans.
Not that Trump's supporters will believe that even after he was exposed trying to rig the election in Georgia.
Like others I've seen that Rumsfeld quote positively referenced many times. Maybe it was the man and the moment that saw it criticised more than its inherent quality.
If you wanted to really throw in an unknown unknown - what if evidence emerged after Biden's inauguration that Trump HAD been robbed in the electoral college? (I know. I know....they would have to have done a brilliant job in both doing it and suppressing the discovery of it. But put on your thriller screenwriter's hat.)
You'd have an extraordinary political rift within the US. And a President with no authority, facing daily demands he hand the White House back to Trump. Those storming Congress would be seen by many as actually being the patriots they professed to be (albeit, not that they had anything to go on at the time other than gut feeling...)
If you were running a Moscow bot factory, imagine the fun.... Meanwhile, the US would be paralysed. With Trump on the media, fired up by righteous anger.
(OK, maybe that's enough hat-wearing....)
Altogether more likely voter fraud will be uncovered that tipped a close state (e.g. North Carolina) to the Republicans.
Not that Trump's supporters will believe that even after he was exposed trying to rig the election in Georgia.
For once I am in agreement with Alastair - not only in his overall piece but on the specifics of Rumsfeld. I don't think his comment was in any way difficult to understand and was also very perceptive. One of the many problems with modern life is the refusal to understand there are many things that not only we don't know, but we haven't even conceived they might be possible.
What I would say I disagree with Alastair over is the nature of the emigration from London. My understanding was that this was mostly in the form of European ex-pats leaving both London and the UK to return to their countries of origin. As such I don't see how this exodus helps Labour at the national level and it only hinders them at the local level where EU citizens had the vote in local elections.
Mind you, as the piece points out, the whole thing is in such turmoil at the moment I am not sure it is possible to draw any definite conclusions about the possible after effects
I’ve also always wondered why people said Rumsfeld’s words were hard to understand. I thought frankly the key problem was they were a statement of the bleeding obvious, but given how dim journalists are turning out to be I’m starting to have more sympathy with him.
It's because people didn't like him. I vaguely recall much comic mirth being mined from it.
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
Johns Hopkins University statistics are to be questioned but a Russian State Propaganda unit think piece is “interesting”. I sometimes wonder if Malc is actually in an office block somewhere in St Petersburg.
You obviously know little of Scotland, did you spot the author of the article, that well known Russian "Tommy Sheridan" MSP.
Would that be convicted perjurer and former prisoner Tommy Sheridan?
If you wanted to really throw in an unknown unknown - what if evidence emerged after Biden's inauguration that Trump HAD been robbed in the electoral college? (I know. I know....they would have to have done a brilliant job in both doing it and suppressing the discovery of it. But put on your thriller screenwriter's hat.)
You'd have an extraordinary political rift within the US. And a President with no authority, facing daily demands he hand the White House back to Trump. Those storming Congress would be seen by many as actually being the patriots they professed to be (albeit, not that they had anything to go on at the time other than gut feeling...)
If you were running a Moscow bot factory, imagine the fun.... Meanwhile, the US would be paralysed. With Trump on the media, fired up by righteous anger.
(OK, maybe that's enough hat-wearing....)
"Evidence" will emerge, you can guarantee it.
It will be along the lines of the "evidence" that the moon landings were faked, that Diana is alive and living in Indiana having faked her own death, that COVID is caused by 5G and that aliens walk amongst us.
So your final paragraph will happen. Because the "evidence", "the truth" will be out there.
For once I am in agreement with Alastair - not only in his overall piece but on the specifics of Rumsfeld. I don't think his comment was in any way difficult to understand and was also very perceptive. One of the many problems with modern life is the refusal to understand there are many things that not only we don't know, but we haven't even conceived they might be possible.
What I would say I disagree with Alastair over is the nature of the emigration from London. My understanding was that this was mostly in the form of European ex-pats leaving both London and the UK to return to their countries of origin. As such I don't see how this exodus helps Labour at the national level and it only hinders them at the local level where EU citizens had the vote in local elections.
Mind you, as the piece points out, the whole thing is in such turmoil at the moment I am not sure it is possible to draw any definite conclusions about the possible after effects
I’ve also always wondered why people said Rumsfeld’s words were hard to understand. I thought frankly the key problem was they were a statement of the bleeding obvious, but given how dim journalists are turning out to be I’m starting to have more sympathy with him.
It's because people didn't like him. I vaguely recall much comic mirth being mined from it.
Johns Hopkins University statistics are to be questioned but a Russian State Propaganda unit think piece is “interesting”. I sometimes wonder if Malc is actually in an office block somewhere in St Petersburg.
You obviously know little of Scotland, did you spot the author of the article, that well known Russian "Tommy Sheridan" MSP.
Would that be convicted perjurer and former prisoner Tommy Sheridan?
Wasn't he convicted of perjury on perjured evidence though?
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
Looked at carefully this is a proper 3 way split roughly 34,32,34.
SKS could of course distinguish himself from the crowd, please Scotland and NI (inasmuch as doing so is humanly possible - not much), avoid rejoining and do the intelligent thing by aligning himself and Labour to EEA/EFTA. It would of course annoy farmers and fishermen, both of which groups wish to be both in and out of the EU simultaneously, and irritate the DUP who oppose all things and support no things, and would take some explaining; but Norway and Iceland aren't actually basket cases.
And it would continue to fulfil the letter of the referendum while upsetting the extremes on both sides.
Dare he take the risk of doing the right thing? Surely not. he's a politician.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
QAnoners can work in care homes too. 😡
They do exist and have the right to refuse not just the jab but testing too.
Wow! Just margin of error stuff a few weeks after the deal to end all deals. I am now quietly confident that, freedom of movement and the single market might reappear in my lifetime. Thanks for that potentially positive poll.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
I remember a little while back there was polling on younger people 'not wanting' a vaccination, and I was told (among other things) that it was just showing that younger people recognised that they were not likely to get one soon and it was more urgent that others get them, but I still never got why whether they wanted one (regardless of when) was so low, even if they thought they didn't need one. I'd still take one if offered.
Johns Hopkins University statistics are to be questioned but a Russian State Propaganda unit think piece is “interesting”. I sometimes wonder if Malc is actually in an office block somewhere in St Petersburg.
You obviously know little of Scotland, did you spot the author of the article, that well known Russian "Tommy Sheridan" MSP.
Would that be convicted perjurer and former prisoner Tommy Sheridan?
Wasn't he convicted of perjury on perjured evidence though?
Wow! Just margin of error stuff a few weeks after the deal to end all deals. I am now quietly confident that, freedom of movement and the single market might reappear in my lifetime. Thanks for that potentially positive poll.
Positive? It shows nothing has changed despite the trend in the right/wrong polling.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
Ridiculous amounts of traffic on main road a few dozen yards from my house today. Like a particularly busy normal sunday. Where are they are all going?
As Eddy Royle would have said, "Lockdown...my arse".
Wow. Just reading about the Dutch government. I wonder if our lot were faced with a similar scandal they would resign en masse or whether it would all be pinned on a senior civil servant or Gavin Williamson?
Isn't the Post Office scandal similar enough?
The trouble with the Post Office Scandal, bad as it is, is that it happened under successive administrations - both the previous Labour Government starting in 2000 and running into the Cameron Coalition after 2010. I don't actually hold Labour responsible for it any more than I do Cameron because this was clearly a case of officials within the Post Office choosing to cover up the fact that the Horizon system was flawed and shutting down their own investigations when they looked like they might show the Post Office was liable for the failures. In this instance it appears that it was MPs doing their jobs properly who were trying to hold the Post Office to account.
In the case of the Dutch childcare scandal it has happened entirely on Rutte's watch since it started in 2012 and he has been PM since 2010 so he really has nowhere to hide.
The failing in the UK system is that no one in the Post Office management will actually go to jail for ruining people's lives.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
That will be popular with single parents, won't it?
I assume single parents would be an exemption. One adult to a shopping trip seems fair to me. I live near the studenty part of Leeds and there's often entire student houses going to the local Co-op together each evening around 5-7pm. They're always masked up, but it's still 3-4 times the risk of just one person going.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
At least the old dears are at a 97% vaccination rate.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
I tend to agree. Actually I strongly agree. What fascinates me is where are people catching it. I am lucky in that I mostly can work from home, and the uni has been pretty good at Covid safety measures. Are people who catch it not careful? Or do their circumstances make it harder to avoid? Do some think it’s not a disease to be feared? There is a story to be told somewhere about this.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
That will be popular with single parents, won't it?
I assume single parents would be an exemption. One adult to a shopping trip seems fair to me. I live near the studenty part of Leeds and there's often entire student houses going to the local Co-op together each evening around 5-7pm. They're always masked up, but it's still 3-4 times the risk of just one person going.
Well, it doesn't affect me either way as it must be two years since I went shopping with somebody else. It was just I foresaw an immediate minor snag in it.
I tend to agree. Actually I strongly agree. What fascinates me is where are people catching it. I am lucky in that I mostly can work from home, and the uni has been pretty good at Covid safety measures. Are people who catch it not careful? Or do their circumstances make it harder to avoid? Do some think it’s not a disease to be feared? There is a story to be told somewhere about this.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
"We gambled away £11.8 million: it’s time to make the betting industry pay A group of 30 people, from all walks of life, want tougher regulation to save others from the same fate" (£)
I've not read this paywalled article but some of the current proposals are dangerous for ordinary punters, in particular the proposed limit of losses to £200 a month. Where the betting industry might be hoist by its own petard is in its expansion from games of skill (such as betting on horses, football and politics) to games of chance like cartoon races and FOBTs. It is the latter that are more addictive, have led to increased losses for out-of-control gamblers, and increased profits for the bookmaking chains.
£200 / month...is that a typo? Online poker would be finished if that was the case.
Yes. To be fair, other figures have been bandied about and I think the Gambling Commission was (originally) talking about a trigger for intervention rather than freezing accounts. But yes, normal, skilled punting would be rendered impracticable if the more extreme measures are adopted.
I always felt Rumsfeld was unfairly criticised for that. I think it was really rather a good point.
Brexit is at least mostly done in that everyone rather wants to march away from it. There're clearly problems - some few of which are invented no doubt - and those problems need to be sorted out. It is of course the situation once things have settled down that matters. Few remainers based their arguments on the short-term chaos, and few Leavers thought that there wouldn't be such a thing.
I imagine it'll take a while until a 'rejoin' message can get any traction. People (on all sides) are just tired, and rejoin will clearly have to be a very long haul. My hunch is that the UK will be fine outside the EU, and over the very long term this will be beneficial. We'll avoid what I see as the inevitable EU mess that'll come along soon.
Covid - I think it's interesting to wonder cities look like post covid, and London is the premier city. Loads of businesses will choose to move out - city-centre office prices will fall. However some businesses may well choose to move in, and the idea of city centres becomes almost entirely a services idea. Canary Wharf will see a decline, but I doubt Mayfair will.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
That will be popular with single parents, won't it?
Can always have online deliveries.
Not taking the kids to the shop to pester "I want that" every other aisle is one of the benefits of online shopping.
You have a silver lining for every Government cloud. Hats off to you.
No, that was speaking very honestly as a dad. I can't be the only father who's had to deal with pester power?
We've had online deliveries for years now and because we didn't want to take the children to the shops. If we take them it literally is now because we want to take them out, as a trip out, not because we need to do so.
I don’t think your opening statement is reflected in that poll. What it shows is that a plurality of voters would not vote to rejoin. You can’t get anything else out of that data,
It's well known that a 52/48 split means that an issue is settled and of no further political relevance.
Thankfully I am looking forward to many more decades of this debate. Nothing is forever and there are plenty of unknown unknown's ahead of us in the relationship between the UK and EU including the nature and existence of the EU over the longer term,
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
I believe there is precedent - some jobs around the world are conditional on being vaccinated for the various local fun bugs. No jab, no job.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
That wouldn’t necessarily be an unfair dismissal. You could get away with introducing a workplace policy that vaccination is necessary if and when available. I’ve spoken at length about this with other employment lawyers and we mostly agree that the decision of Pimlico Plumbers (who admittedly but farcically maintain their plumbers are self employed) to require vaccination will be followed by other companies. If there’s a policy and the policy is not followed I can’t see it being outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
That will be popular with single parents, won't it?
I assume single parents would be an exemption. One adult to a shopping trip seems fair to me. I live near the studenty part of Leeds and there's often entire student houses going to the local Co-op together each evening around 5-7pm. They're always masked up, but it's still 3-4 times the risk of just one person going.
Indeed. In the Spring many supermarkets had a policy of one adult per trip. Children were an exception, like they are with mask rules too.
I'd be shocked if children were caught up in a hard and fast rule.
I tend to agree. Actually I strongly agree. What fascinates me is where are people catching it. I am lucky in that I mostly can work from home, and the uni has been pretty good at Covid safety measures. Are people who catch it not careful? Or do their circumstances make it harder to avoid? Do some think it’s not a disease to be feared? There is a story to be told somewhere about this.
Supermarket workers, people in hospital, people working in nearly finished buildings on construction sites.
I tend to agree. Actually I strongly agree. What fascinates me is where are people catching it. I am lucky in that I mostly can work from home, and the uni has been pretty good at Covid safety measures. Are people who catch it not careful? Or do their circumstances make it harder to avoid? Do some think it’s not a disease to be feared? There is a story to be told somewhere about this.
Supermarket workers, people in hospitdal, people working in nearly finished buildings on construction sites.
Absolutely, but that surely isn’t everyone who is catching it. I intend no criticism of people, rather I am genuinely interested where the transmission is.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
That wouldn’t necessarily be an unfair dismissal. You could get away with introducing a workplace policy that vaccination is necessary if and when available. I’ve spoken at length about this with other employment lawyers and we mostly agree that the decision of Pimlico Plumbers (who admittedly but farcically maintain their plumbers are self employed) to require vaccination will be followed by other companies. If there’s a policy and the policy is not followed I can’t see it being outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss.
I was chatting to an Intensivist the other day. He has seen some very nasty lung damage in youngsters which is likely to be long term. That seemed to be the case with SARS too.
Surprising as it may seem, there is a lot of antivaxxing even amongst the ICU nurses, with significant numbers declining it.
Family outings to the supermarket could be banned as part of tough new rules to stop the spread of coronavirus.
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
Ridiculous amounts of traffic on main road a few dozen yards from my house today. Like a particularly busy normal sunday. Where are they are all going?
As Eddy Royle would have said, "Lockdown...my arse".
Lockdown will end not with a bang but with a whimper. People will make a big play of publicly avowing compliance but at the edges people will increasingly drift away from it.
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
I'm fortunate that I work for an employer that has paid for things like chairs, mifi routers, desks, printers and print ink, etc.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
The problem that you will run into this was discussed yesterday. Essentially you'd end up banning larger numbers of people from the profession from some cultural groups than others.
This would be open and shut institutional racism, according to the definition used.
I found something interesting out the other day. The online COVID testing booking service does not check the phone number given. To do so would be simple - you can buy an off-the-shelf solution that sends a text to a mobile number and makes an automated call to landlines. You are given a code - typically a 6 digit number to fill in, and you can then proceed forward. So only valid numbers will work.
This was specifically excluded from the test booking system design - not forgotten. Because experts in the area advised that bad/wrong numbers would be given by certain groups disproportionately. So a validation system would block such groups from getting tests.
Disagreed. The four Chief Medical Officer representing all 4 home nations, the JCVI and the MHRA and a lot of other scientific evidence unanimously say this is the right thing to do. Their logic seems to be unimpeachable.
Your number for Pfizer seems to be flawed, I'm not sure where you're suggesting 52% protection 12 days after the first dose came from. That seems to be a lower number by including the people who got the infection before the 12 days.
The JCVI reported that one dose alone was enough to give 70% protection after 12 days, rising to 95% a week after the second.
The easiest way to demonstrate it is with numbers, lets round to 14 million high risk people with an initial 14 million doses available.
Scenario 1: Vaccinate and give booster vaccination to half the people. 7 million have 95% protection = 350k vulnerable 7 million unvaccinated = 7 million vulnerable Total vulnerable: 7,350,000
Scenario 2: Vaccinate everyone once, wait for booster. 14 million have 70% protection. Total vulnerable: 4,200,000
Scenario 1 has 75% more vulnerable people than scenario 2. No brainer.
As I have other things to do, I wasn't able to respond to this from @Philip_Thompson in the previous thread.
The 52% protection after 12 days comes from Pfizer's own technical data released last month.
"Published efficacy between dose 1 and 2 of the Pfizer vaccine was 52.4% (95% CI 29.5-68.4%). Based on the timing of cases accrued in the phase 3 study, most the vaccine failures in the period between doses occurred shortly after vaccination, the period before any immune response is expected. Using data for those cases observed between day 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was estimated at 89% (95% CI 52-97%)"
I find it the linguistic equivalent of the jungle but basically it seems to suggest if you don't get infected with Covid soon after the vaccination, the vaccine is more effective with time.
The key then is to tell people after they've had the first vaccination they are still at risk for at least a fortnight but if they survive that, they'll probably be all right. This still seems to contradict Pfizer's data so one source says 52% protection at Day 12 and another claims 89% at Days 15-21 yet Pfizer originally said 95% protection was available at Day 28 after a booster shot.
The question then is whether we trust the manufacturer's data or the JCVI data. We are taking a real risk that sufficient immunity is provided by an initial vaccination - I challenge that risk and deem it unnecessary.
The second aspect is not to treat vaccination as a magic bullet which it clearly isn't. Immunity needs time to build but too much of the mood music suggests as soon as we are vaccinated we can get back to a normal life which is patently wrong.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
That wouldn’t necessarily be an unfair dismissal. You could get away with introducing a workplace policy that vaccination is necessary if and when available. I’ve spoken at length about this with other employment lawyers and we mostly agree that the decision of Pimlico Plumbers (who admittedly but farcically maintain their plumbers are self employed) to require vaccination will be followed by other companies. If there’s a policy and the policy is not followed I can’t see it being outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss.
I am obligated to be vaccinated against Hep B by occy health, so there is precedent.
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
I'm fortunate that I work for an employer that has paid for things like chairs, mifi routers, desks, printers and print ink, etc.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
As ever, the sensible, quality employers will provide equipment.
The shit ones will demand that people furnish a home office themselves, to a required spec. Or lose their jobs.
I was chatting to an Intensivist the other day. He has seen some very nasty lung damage in youngsters which is likely to be long term. That seemed to be the case with SARS too.
Surprising as it may seem, there is a lot of antivaxxing even amongst the ICU nurses, with significant numbers declining it.
How do the anti-vax nurses justify their position?
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
I'm fortunate that I work for an employer that has paid for things like chairs, mifi routers, desks, printers and print ink, etc.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
In a lot of places they can - say by paying for Virgin Media cable rather than a Openreach provider.
Disagreed. The four Chief Medical Officer representing all 4 home nations, the JCVI and the MHRA and a lot of other scientific evidence unanimously say this is the right thing to do. Their logic seems to be unimpeachable.
Your number for Pfizer seems to be flawed, I'm not sure where you're suggesting 52% protection 12 days after the first dose came from. That seems to be a lower number by including the people who got the infection before the 12 days.
The JCVI reported that one dose alone was enough to give 70% protection after 12 days, rising to 95% a week after the second.
The easiest way to demonstrate it is with numbers, lets round to 14 million high risk people with an initial 14 million doses available.
Scenario 1: Vaccinate and give booster vaccination to half the people. 7 million have 95% protection = 350k vulnerable 7 million unvaccinated = 7 million vulnerable Total vulnerable: 7,350,000
Scenario 2: Vaccinate everyone once, wait for booster. 14 million have 70% protection. Total vulnerable: 4,200,000
Scenario 1 has 75% more vulnerable people than scenario 2. No brainer.
As I have other things to do, I wasn't able to respond to this from @Philip_Thompson in the previous thread.
The 52% protection after 12 days comes from Pfizer's own technical data released last month.
"Published efficacy between dose 1 and 2 of the Pfizer vaccine was 52.4% (95% CI 29.5-68.4%). Based on the timing of cases accrued in the phase 3 study, most the vaccine failures in the period between doses occurred shortly after vaccination, the period before any immune response is expected. Using data for those cases observed between day 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was estimated at 89% (95% CI 52-97%)"
I find it the linguistic equivalent of the jungle but basically it seems to suggest if you don't get infected with Covid soon after the vaccination, the vaccine is more effective with time.
The key then is to tell people after they've had the first vaccination they are still at risk for at least a fortnight but if they survive that, they'll probably be all right. This still seems to contradict Pfizer's data so one source says 52% protection at Day 12 and another claims 89% at Days 15-21 yet Pfizer originally said 95% protection was available at Day 28 after a booster shot.
The question then is whether we trust the manufacturer's data or the JCVI data. We are taking a real risk that sufficient immunity is provided by an initial vaccination - I challenge that risk and deem it unnecessary.
The second aspect is not to treat vaccination as a magic bullet which it clearly isn't. Immunity needs time to build but too much of the mood music suggests as soon as we are vaccinated we can get back to a normal life which is patently wrong.
I think you're misreading the data.
52.4% between first jab and second is not from day twelve, it is from first jab.
The JCVI said 70% from day twelve. Not sure why when your data says 89% from day 15, but that even more emphasises why the right decision is being made.
If it is 89% then 14 million @ 89% would leave 1,540,000 at risk as opposed to 7,350,000 at risk if you did only 7 million but with a booster. Again, a no brainer.
Yes the time from the first vaccine for it to take effect seems the most important bit not the booster. The booster seems relatively inconsequential, it is the initial dose then staying safe for a fortnight that is the main thing. Hence the right thing to do is give the initial dose to everyone vulnerable during the lockdown.
PS it is necessary to take the risk of leaving people without a booster yet because the greater risk is leaving half the vulnerable population without any injection at all.
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
I'm fortunate that I work for an employer that has paid for things like chairs, mifi routers, desks, printers and print ink, etc.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
In a lot of places they can - say by paying for Virgin Media cable rather than a Openreach provider.
We've tried that, in the really remote places they aren't interested.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
The problem that you will run into this was discussed yesterday. Essentially you'd end up banning larger numbers of people from the profession from some cultural groups than others.
This would be open and shut institutional racism, according to the definition used.
I found something interesting out the other day. The online COVID testing booking service does not check the phone number given. To do so would be simple - you can buy an off-the-shelf solution that sends a text to a mobile number and makes an automated call to landlines. You are given a code - typically a 6 digit number to fill in, and you can then proceed forward. So only valid numbers will work.
This was specifically excluded from the test booking system design - not forgotten. Because experts in the area advised that bad/wrong numbers would be given by certain groups disproportionately. So a validation system would block such groups from getting tests.
What you describe is an argument of “indirect discrimination” (as opposed to direct discrimination eg “no women!”, or “no Poles!”) under the Equality Act. Essentially the anti-vaccine argument before a Tribunal would be that employers requiring vaccinations would have a disproportionate negative impact on certain ethnic or religious groups. But indirect discrimination can be justified (unlike direct discrimination) if it’s a proportionate means (ie requiring vaccination) of achieving a legitimate aim (ie limiting the spread of a fatal disease in the workplace) so I don’t think a racism argument, legally, works.
My firm has suggested doing a “virtual commute” ie going for a long walk to symbolically separate the working day from the rest of the day. A lot of already successful people with a large amount of space are loving working from home but the have nots much less so. I’m very much on the fence about the future of home working. I’ve noticed a significant waning in enthusiasm since this all began last March and a lot of my employer clients are worried about productivity.
I think I'll be going back to work at least three days a week, I miss my colleagues.
There's just too many distractions, particularly if you have (young) kids.
The most stressed employee who has been working from home is the one who has broadband speed of circa 5 Mbps and has to share that.
Before the plague I used to do compressed working, I think that might become more popular.
20 or so years back my employer paid for techies' broadband internet because they might need to call in from home. We might need to return to employers putting their hands in their pockets for dedicated internet connections (and chairs, printers, shredders and so on). At the moment, employees working from home are subsidising their employers.
I'm fortunate that I work for an employer that has paid for things like chairs, mifi routers, desks, printers and print ink, etc.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
Employers probably can improve workers' connectivity, either by supplying a work-only line not to be shared with the kids on zoom calls to their history and physics teachers, and/or by paying for a higher-bandwidth or business connection.
Up to a fifth of staff in some care home groups have refused a coronavirus vaccine when offered with suggestions that younger workers are more likely to be resistant.
No jab, no workie....
Don't see how they can continue in the profession to be honest.
Ethically they shouldn't. It's sickening.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
The problem that you will run into this was discussed yesterday. Essentially you'd end up banning larger numbers of people from the profession from some cultural groups than others.
This would be open and shut institutional racism, according to the definition used.
I found something interesting out the other day. The online COVID testing booking service does not check the phone number given. To do so would be simple - you can buy an off-the-shelf solution that sends a text to a mobile number and makes an automated call to landlines. You are given a code - typically a 6 digit number to fill in, and you can then proceed forward. So only valid numbers will work.
This was specifically excluded from the test booking system design - not forgotten. Because experts in the area advised that bad/wrong numbers would be given by certain groups disproportionately. So a validation system would block such groups from getting tests.
What you describe is an argument of “indirect discrimination” (as opposed to direct discrimination eg “no women!”, or “no Poles!”) under the Equality Act. Essentially the anti-vaccine argument before a Tribunal would be that employers requiring vaccinations would have a disproportionate negative impact on certain ethnic or religious groups. But indirect discrimination can be justified (unlike direct discrimination) if it’s a proportionate means (ie requiring vaccination) of achieving a legitimate aim (ie limiting the spread of a fatal disease in the workplace) so I don’t think a racism argument, legally, works.
Interesting. I would suspect that will be challenged, very very hard, if no-jab-no-job becomes common.
Comments
Because if so, I have an altogether more jaundiced view of them than you do
In all these cases they at best known unknowns but I would argue that Covid is far further towards the unknown unknown side of things as while you there will be a pandemic you can't predict what type it will be and how you will need to handle it.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1347501867253854210?s=20
I would have no problem if the Tories are largest party in a hung parliament at the next general election but Starmer becomes PM as Labour + SNP have more MPs than Tories + DUP. That is very possible on current polls and thus 2024 could be the first general election England has not got the party in government it voted for since February 1974.
I obviously hope for a Tory majority but as a Unionist I have to accept that England cannot always get its own way. However I would hope such a UK result leads to an English Parliament or regional assemblies and we finally settle the West Lothian question
https://www.slideshare.net/Stepscentre/s10d-uncertainty-for-cba
And of course in my sly Welsh way I was getting at the SNP’s coalition partners
This is why decent people wouldn't touch them with a stick.
And we know this because it's happened twice in the last 25 years, and on one occasion the responsible minister ultimately went on to be PM.
https://twitter.com/IFTVofficial/status/1350801270081282052?s=20
Stores will be encouraged to impose a 'shop alone' policy after officials became concerned too many people were seeing it as a 'trip out' for their family.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9156437/The-family-shop-set-BANNED-shop-policy-supermarket-trips.html
You'd have an extraordinary political rift within the US. And a President with no authority, facing daily demands he hand the White House back to Trump. Those storming Congress would be seen by many as actually being the patriots they professed to be (albeit, not that they had anything to go on at the time other than gut feeling...)
If you were running a Moscow bot factory, imagine the fun.... Meanwhile, the US would be paralysed. With Trump on the media, fired up by righteous anger.
(OK, maybe that's enough hat-wearing....)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9154645/The-chilling-proof-fit-young-Covid-victims-suffer-lifelong-lung-damage.html
Not taking the kids to the shop to pester "I want that" every other aisle is one of the benefits of online shopping.
The GC's consultation is online for anyone who wants to fill it in:
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call/consult_view/
Not that Trump's supporters will believe that even after he was exposed trying to rig the election in Georgia.
It will be along the lines of the "evidence" that the moon landings were faked, that Diana is alive and living in Indiana having faked her own death, that COVID is caused by 5G and that aliens walk amongst us.
So your final paragraph will happen. Because the "evidence", "the truth" will be out there.
Or did that not affect his conviction?
No jab, no workie....
SKS could of course distinguish himself from the crowd, please Scotland and NI (inasmuch as doing so is humanly possible - not much), avoid rejoining and do the intelligent thing by aligning himself and Labour to EEA/EFTA. It would of course annoy farmers and fishermen, both of which groups wish to be both in and out of the EU simultaneously, and irritate the DUP who oppose all things and support no things, and would take some explaining; but Norway and Iceland aren't actually basket cases.
And it would continue to fulfil the letter of the referendum while upsetting the extremes on both sides.
Dare he take the risk of doing the right thing? Surely not. he's a politician.
They do exist and have the right to refuse not just the jab but testing too.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13212207.sheridans-fight-against-perjury-conviction-suffers-setback/
As Eddy Royle would have said, "Lockdown...my arse".
In the case of the Dutch childcare scandal it has happened entirely on Rutte's watch since it started in 2012 and he has been PM since 2010 so he really has nowhere to hide.
The failing in the UK system is that no one in the Post Office management will actually go to jail for ruining people's lives.
Legally that is the law. It would require an Act of Parliament surely to change the law to enable dismissal for those who refuse. Otherwise it is unfair dismissal since it is only strongly recommended and not legally mandated.
One of my wife's colleagues is literally a Q believer. Before the election she was talking about how Biden is in league with paedophiles and she's not just refused the vaccine she was trying to talk everyone out of getting the vaccine. When they got approval to get the vaccine she was noisily trying to convince everyone not to get it. My wife got hers then told everyone she had it, which led many people to ask how it was then others started getting it and now thankfully as far as she knows the entire unit besides this idiot (who was told eventually to STFU by an angry colleague) has had it.
On the other units without any Q nutters working there she says there was no resistance to the rollout at all.
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call/supporting_documents/CI consultation call for evidence.pdf
I always felt Rumsfeld was unfairly criticised for that. I think it was really rather a good point.
Brexit is at least mostly done in that everyone rather wants to march away from it. There're clearly problems - some few of which are invented no doubt - and those problems need to be sorted out. It is of course the situation once things have settled down that matters. Few remainers based their arguments on the short-term chaos, and few Leavers thought that there wouldn't be such a thing.
I imagine it'll take a while until a 'rejoin' message can get any traction. People (on all sides) are just tired, and rejoin will clearly have to be a very long haul. My hunch is that the UK will be fine outside the EU, and over the very long term this will be beneficial. We'll avoid what I see as the inevitable EU mess that'll come along soon.
Covid - I think it's interesting to wonder cities look like post covid, and London is the premier city. Loads of businesses will choose to move out - city-centre office prices will fall. However some businesses may well choose to move in, and the idea of city centres becomes almost entirely a services idea. Canary Wharf will see a decline, but I doubt Mayfair will.
I think Davey has been a bit too hasty in ruling it out of the next manifesto. Rejoining the Single Market might be even more popular.
We've had online deliveries for years now and because we didn't want to take the children to the shops. If we take them it literally is now because we want to take them out, as a trip out, not because we need to do so.
Jordan Henderson is playing centre back again, he's not bad, but like Fabinho we lose an important midfielder.
So United become the first side to win at Anfield in the Premier League since April 2017.
I'd be shocked if children were caught up in a hard and fast rule.
Should make it policy then.
Surprising as it may seem, there is a lot of antivaxxing even amongst the ICU nurses, with significant numbers declining it.
With the best will in the world an employer cannot improve the broadband speeds outside their offices.
'Take the UK back into the EU' mightn't win them 63 seats but it would set a solid floor to their support and keep them alive.
This would be open and shut institutional racism, according to the definition used.
I found something interesting out the other day. The online COVID testing booking service does not check the phone number given. To do so would be simple - you can buy an off-the-shelf solution that sends a text to a mobile number and makes an automated call to landlines. You are given a code - typically a 6 digit number to fill in, and you can then proceed forward. So only valid numbers will work.
This was specifically excluded from the test booking system design - not forgotten. Because experts in the area advised that bad/wrong numbers would be given by certain groups disproportionately. So a validation system would block such groups from getting tests.
The 52% protection after 12 days comes from Pfizer's own technical data released last month.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
This from the JCVI statement on New Year's Eve:
"Published efficacy between dose 1 and 2 of the Pfizer vaccine was 52.4% (95% CI 29.5-68.4%). Based
on the timing of cases accrued in the phase 3 study, most the vaccine failures in the period between
doses occurred shortly after vaccination, the period before any immune response is expected. Using
data for those cases observed between day 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was
estimated at 89% (95% CI 52-97%)"
I find it the linguistic equivalent of the jungle but basically it seems to suggest if you don't get infected with Covid soon after the vaccination, the vaccine is more effective with time.
The key then is to tell people after they've had the first vaccination they are still at risk for at least a fortnight but if they survive that, they'll probably be all right. This still seems to contradict Pfizer's data so one source says 52% protection at Day 12 and another claims 89% at Days 15-21 yet Pfizer originally said 95% protection was available at Day 28 after a booster shot.
The question then is whether we trust the manufacturer's data or the JCVI data. We are taking a real risk that sufficient immunity is provided by an initial vaccination - I challenge that risk and deem it unnecessary.
The second aspect is not to treat vaccination as a magic bullet which it clearly isn't. Immunity needs time to build but too much of the mood music suggests as soon as we are vaccinated we can get back to a normal life which is patently wrong.
What am I saying....having only vaccinated the equivalent of the adult population of Swindon and Exeter combined yesterday, HEADS MUST ROLL...
The shit ones will demand that people furnish a home office themselves, to a required spec. Or lose their jobs.
52.4% between first jab and second is not from day twelve, it is from first jab.
The JCVI said 70% from day twelve. Not sure why when your data says 89% from day 15, but that even more emphasises why the right decision is being made.
If it is 89% then 14 million @ 89% would leave 1,540,000 at risk as opposed to 7,350,000 at risk if you did only 7 million but with a booster. Again, a no brainer.
Yes the time from the first vaccine for it to take effect seems the most important bit not the booster. The booster seems relatively inconsequential, it is the initial dose then staying safe for a fortnight that is the main thing. Hence the right thing to do is give the initial dose to everyone vulnerable during the lockdown.
PS it is necessary to take the risk of leaving people without a booster yet because the greater risk is leaving half the vulnerable population without any injection at all.
Made the magic bullet theory even more weird.
https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1350831631683108874