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.
In Israel the Pfizer vaccine didn't impact infections in the first 2 weeks, then reduced it by 33% in the third week. That was in the elderly population. It was a bit more effective in the younger age group, with another Israeli HMO finding a 60% reduction after 3 weeks. I think the two were averaged for the headline. Notably 17% of current serious cases had had the first jab too.
I don't think the 90% protection at the 3 week point in the Pfizer study can be applied to the elderly population. That is the figure for the total study population, and we know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly due to the phenomenon of immunosenesce. I think the AZN figure has the same issue, with the added caveat that the numbers of elderly in their studies were fewer still.
Israel is doing second Pfizer doses on schedule, so we will get limited further data from there, but we should see our own data on the effectiveness without the second dose by the end of February. Fingers crossed that it does provide some protection.
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.
A previous employer of my wife, in the early days of online stuff, would pay for the installation of a completely separate broadband connection and contract. If you were classed as "WFH" - you either got that done, paid for by the company, or you had to prove your own connection was good enough.
Rumsfeld’s epistemology is fine as far as it goes, but it omits the fourth term - the ‘unknown knowns’ of discourse – ‘the disavowed beliefs and suppositions we are not even aware of adhering to ourselves’ (Žižek 2008). The ‘unknown knowns’ constitute ideology, surely an indispensable concept for the keen observer of politics?
President Biden's inauguration is three days away but you can still get 1.01 Trump to leave office in 2021, and you can stake over £2 million. There is a small amount of 75 to be laid on 2025 which is slightly better. (70 has just appeared while I was typing this so someone thinks there is still time for Trump to expose the dodgy voting machines.)
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.
Certain professions require a Hep B vaccination without controversy. Legally I just don’t see how requiring a vaccination cannot be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Also, from a race discrimination perspective, I don’t see the evidence yet. As for religious discrimination I’ve yet to see many religions (or similar philosophical belief) that absolutely prohibits it save, I guess, maybe Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but even then I think the legitimate aim thing, being a major public health issue, overrides their beliefs..
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.
In the really remote places you would end up with satellite broadband - which should be around in the next year now Starlink is approved in the UK.
In the 1940s my grandfather arrived in Scotland. He had nothing. I want to ensure that ever person in Scotland has the opportunity to be like my grandfather.
In the 1940s my grandfather arrived in Scotland. He had nothing. I want to ensure that ever person in Scotland has the opportunity to be like my grandfather.
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.
Certain professions require a Hep B vaccination without controversy. Legally I just don’t see how requiring a vaccination cannot be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Also, from a race discrimination perspective, I don’t see the evidence yet. As for religious discrimination I’ve yet to see many religions (or similar philosophical belief) that absolutely prohibits it save, I guess, maybe Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but even then I think the legitimate aim thing, being a major public health issue, overrides their beliefs..
I think Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood products, but not vaccinations. I think it is because the soul is considered to be present in blood.
Real Labour man, millionaire who pays below minimum wage, kids at private schools, supported bombing middle east , what more could you want for Tories little helpers.
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.
In Israel the Pfizer vaccine didn't impact infections in the first 2 weeks, then reduced it by 33% in the third week. That was in the elderly population. It was a bit more effective in the younger age group, with another Israeli HMO finding a 60% reduction after 3 weeks. I think the two were averaged for the headline. Notably 17% of current serious cases had had the first jab too.
I don't think the 90% protection at the 3 week point in the Pfizer study can be applied to the elderly population. That is the figure for the total study population, and we know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly due to the phenomenon of immunosenesce. I think the AZN figure has the same issue, with the added caveat that the numbers of elderly in their studies were fewer still.
Israel is doing second Pfizer doses on schedule, so we will get limited further data from there, but we should see our own data on the effectiveness without the second dose by the end of February. Fingers crossed that it does provide some protection.
By the time we get that end of February data, it will be useful for the rest of the world but relatively inconsequential for decision making in this country, since the NHS is already booking in the second dose vaccinations from the end of February anyway.
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.
I could enjoy home working in the summer, although teaching at home really isn’t great.
During the winter I wouldn’t want to. As an honorary Cardi, I’m too much of a skinflint to pay for the extra heating.
I don't understand that stance.
If you aren't willing to pay for the extra heating, then spend it on basics so you need less heating, and you are less miserable working from your own house in winter if you need to.
In England the govt are currently offering a 2/3 subsidy, plus there are also schemes in Wales. It's not that expensive to do.
Mine is pretty good, but I still have plans to do a fair amount over the next year or two. In my case the people who rebuilt it 10 years ago did better than building regs, but it needs to be better.
In the 1940s my grandfather arrived in Scotland. He had nothing. I want to ensure that ever person in Scotland has the opportunity to be like my grandfather.
In the 1940s my grandfather arrived in Scotland. He had nothing. I want to ensure that ever person in Scotland has the opportunity to be like my grandfather.
It's all good wholesome stuff of course, but whenever someone does the 'my [insert relative] could never have imagined I would [run for/hold position X]' it makes me wonder what if their relative was very optimistic and imaginative, and actually could have imagined it.
Real Labour man, millionaire who pays below minimum wage, kids at private schools, supported bombing middle east , what more could you want for Tories little helpers.
That's a hell of an allegation - where's the evidence?
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.
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.
Certain professions require a Hep B vaccination without controversy. Legally I just don’t see how requiring a vaccination cannot be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Also, from a race discrimination perspective, I don’t see the evidence yet. As for religious discrimination I’ve yet to see many religions (or similar philosophical belief) that absolutely prohibits it save, I guess, maybe Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but even then I think the legitimate aim thing, being a major public health issue, overrides their beliefs..
I think Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood products, but not vaccinations. I think it is because the soul is considered to be present in blood.
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?
Surprised he is not a Tory with thatkind of record, stitched up by establishment.
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?
Surprised he is not a Tory with thatkind of record, stitched up by establishment.
You know, being anti-establishment is not inherently a good thing.
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.
So show where Theresa May's or anybody else mentioned has been edited , I dare you. PS: Have you heard of the BBC state propaganda unit where they do it for jobs and knighthoods, where everything is changed to suit UK state propaganda objectives, along with the majority of the newspapapers and paid dumplings. Lots of dummies in UK touch that with less than a bargepole.
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?
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.
ICU nurses! Why @Foxy - what is the most common reason?
President Biden's inauguration is three days away but you can still get 1.01 Trump to leave office in 2021, and you can stake over £2 million. There is a small amount of 75 to be laid on 2025 which is slightly better. (70 has just appeared while I was typing this so someone thinks there is still time for Trump to expose the dodgy voting machines.)
Be wary of Space Force. Did the head of Space Force sign the letter from the heads of the other branches of the other armed forces.....
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.
So show where Theresa May's or anybody else mentioned has been edited , I dare you. PS: Have you heard of the BBC state propaganda unit where they do it for jobs and knighthoods, where everything is changed to suit UK state propaganda objectives, along with the majority of the newspapapers and paid dumplings. Lots of dummies in UK touch that with less than a bargepole.
I suggest you read the detailed reports, in various countries, as to why RT (for example) gets banned.
Sputnik is from the same stable.
If Mr Sheriddan wants to sit in a slurry pond, he will stink of shit.
President Biden's inauguration is three days away but you can still get 1.01 Trump to leave office in 2021, and you can stake over £2 million. There is a small amount of 75 to be laid on 2025 which is slightly better. (70 has just appeared while I was typing this so someone thinks there is still time for Trump to expose the dodgy voting machines.)
Be wary of Space Force. Did the head of Space Force sign the letter from the heads of the other branches of the other armed forces.....
He did I'm afraid.
Interesting for those thinking Trump could still somehow hold on. Surely even if he did expose dodgy voting machines by this point it would be too late without a literal military coup? Congress has already certified the results, if a fix emerged now he'd still be sworn in it seems.
If ever you were inclined to take some time off from internet arguments you cant win about things you cant change, and fancy some feel good, heart warming televison instead... Junior Bake Off on Ch4 - magnificent
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 was mocked, quite rightly, as a non responsive answer to a direct question. The concept is fine; the context was not.
Rumsfeld’s epistemology is fine as far as it goes, but it omits the fourth term - the ‘unknown knowns’ of discourse – ‘the disavowed beliefs and suppositions we are not even aware of adhering to ourselves’ (Žižek 2008). The ‘unknown knowns’ constitute ideology, surely an indispensable concept for the keen observer of politics?
Welcome, Dr Jim. That might be two categories, as it could also describe the stuff that government knows but has kept secret from everyone else.
Good solid decline in positivity but still worryingly high. Be good to see this back below 1% rather than above 5%.
That's effectively asking for cases to go down to 5K or so. If we can sustain the current lockdown and 20% weekly reduction in cases, we could get there in mid March. Hopefully the decline in cases will accelerate a bit more though to provide a bit of a cushion when compliance gets worse again.
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?
Crazy stuff from Social Media apparently.
What did you make of the recently published animal experiments which suggested the Oxford vaccine is way more effective when delivered intranasally ?
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.
ICU nurses! Why @Foxy - what is the most common reason?
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.
ICU nurses! Why @Foxy - what is the most common reason?
That`s awful, but I`d be surprised if propaganda like this got into NHS hospitals. Big differences between care home staff and NHS ICU nurses, I`d suggest.
As a few of us suggested - the country shuts down at Christmas.
People spending time at home with their family, not going to work, not going to work, not going shopping . . . it is perfect for suppressing the virus.
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 was mocked, quite rightly, as a non responsive answer to a direct question. The concept is fine; the context was not.
That is not why most people mocked it, not over here at the least. It was lampooned over and over again as an example of complete idiocy.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
Disappointing first half. I think Man United fans should probably be happiest, Liverpool through everything at them and United came through unscathed. Do you agree David?
Could see this ending 1-0 either direction. Not confident.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
The simplest way to value the property is to ask the owners what they think it is worth. This works if they are then required to sell at that price if offered the money...
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
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 was mocked, quite rightly, as a non responsive answer to a direct question. The concept is fine; the context was not.
That is not why most people mocked it, not over here at the least. It was lampooned over and over again as an example of complete idiocy.
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?
Crazy stuff from Social Media apparently.
What did you make of the recently published animal experiments which suggested the Oxford vaccine is way more effective when delivered intranasally ?
It makes sense to me. Mucosal systems have their own immune systems, and intranasal vaccines stimulate these while intramuscular injection bypasses these. Inhaled vaccine for an inhaled virus sounds well worth studying.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
London's getting hit in all sorts of ways. Deserted offices. Shuttered theatres. The whole centre is a deadzone.
Now we hear 500,000 have fled the city, maybe never to return.
Taxing those that remain might accentuate the decline.
Quite possibly the mindset of "we don't have a problem here...." Guard let down - and before you know it, there's a real problem. There's only a handful of shops, a handful of churches, one secondary school...easy to see how it spreads there, even without serious stupidity.
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 was mocked, quite rightly, as a non responsive answer to a direct question. The concept is fine; the context was not.
That is not why most people mocked it, not over here at the least. It was lampooned over and over again as an example of complete idiocy.
It reminds me of Bush (W) being mocked for saying “More and more of our imports come from overseas" when what he meant was that less was coming from Mexico and Canada, making his statement perfectly reasonable.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
Very similar idea about 10 paras down in a piece by Kevin Holinrake MP on Con Home last September. Slightly more sophisticated, in fact.
In place of the administrative challenge of council tax, in which properties are taxed through a confusing and distorting system of bands and exemptions, the PPT would apply a single rate of tax – 0.48 per cent of property value – to all homes. Owners rather than tenants would be responsible for the tax, removing over 8.7 million households from property tax altogether and saving councils an annual £400 million in administrative costs.
To incentivise more efficient usage of existing property, a surcharge on second, empty and offshore-owned homes would be introduced, as well as on plots of land that received council planning permission yet have been left vacant by developers. The policy is revenue neutral – raising the same amount of money for the Treasury as the scrapped taxes currently do.
To maintain the important democratic link between local expenditure and local taxation, Fairer Share recommends that the 0.48 per cent rate should consist of two components. A fixed national rate (0.32 per cent) which would go to central government for redistribution and an initial floating local rate (0.16 per cent) which would go straight to the local authority and could subsequently be moved up or down by that authority. In this way local authorities retain flexibility over taxation and voters can still judge them on value for money.
And importantly, this approach includes the complete abolition of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on owner-occupied residential property.
I think this is the first day this year when there hasn't been at least one terrifying or apocalyptic news story
OF course the news is still relentlessly grim but there's nothing shocking and new, not today.
A sign of things to come? Or a false dawn?
Your astrologer should of course have told you all about the changes next week will bring.
"Your astrologer" - I rather love you for that phrase - Astrologers like Dentists. Personally I can't employ these folk because my Alchemist has asked me not to.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
There is nothing new about property value being relevant to a tax. The old rates and its new form both depend upon it. The bug in the system is that for political reasons it is always best to defer revaluation as it creates a group of ungrateful winners and a group of whining losers every time. That's just one of reality's iron laws.
As to determining property values, naturally this is difficult but in most cases only difficult because opinion places several values on any given house, eg the value if selling, the value if buying, the value at Islington dinner party conversation, the value when being humble, the value when humblebragging, the value when bragging. the value when valuing for estate duty purposes and finally the value you think it has for the purposes of any value related property tax.
There is a wealth of data widely available about the real value at any time, which is what sort of price would someone actually pay for it in a free market. The truth is about as well known as what a pint costs in Wetherspoons.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
The other part of the package would be abolition of Stamp Duty.
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 was mocked, quite rightly, as a non responsive answer to a direct question. The concept is fine; the context was not.
That is not why most people mocked it, not over here at the least. It was lampooned over and over again as an example of complete idiocy.
Rumsfeld is a good example of a very intelligent man with no judgement at all.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It is, but does that make it the wrong thing to do?
Rent or the mortgage are based on the real value of the property, not the value decades ago, so why shouldn't property taxes be?
Besides if they cause house prices to go down then the tax goes down, as does the mortgage or rent for anyone who goes there in the future.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
I think this is the first day this year when there hasn't been at least one terrifying or apocalyptic news story
OF course the news is still relentlessly grim but there's nothing shocking and new, not today.
A sign of things to come? Or a false dawn?
Your astrologer should of course have told you all about the changes next week will bring.
"Your astrologer" - I rather love you for that phrase - Astrologers like Dentists. Personally I can't employ these folk because my Alchemist has asked me not to.
What is PB if it not a running astrological commentary?
I agree that there is some opportunity for Lab in the home counties but the issue is that the LDs are also trying for many of the same seats. Unless they can agree some sort of tactical voting pact then they risk getting in each other's way (see Finchley and Wimbledon).
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
Very similar idea about 10 paras down in a piece by Kevin Holinrake MP on Con Home last September. Slightly more sophisticated, in fact.
In place of the administrative challenge of council tax, in which properties are taxed through a confusing and distorting system of bands and exemptions, the PPT would apply a single rate of tax – 0.48 per cent of property value – to all homes. Owners rather than tenants would be responsible for the tax, removing over 8.7 million households from property tax altogether and saving councils an annual £400 million in administrative costs.
To incentivise more efficient usage of existing property, a surcharge on second, empty and offshore-owned homes would be introduced, as well as on plots of land that received council planning permission yet have been left vacant by developers. The policy is revenue neutral – raising the same amount of money for the Treasury as the scrapped taxes currently do.
To maintain the important democratic link between local expenditure and local taxation, Fairer Share recommends that the 0.48 per cent rate should consist of two components. A fixed national rate (0.32 per cent) which would go to central government for redistribution and an initial floating local rate (0.16 per cent) which would go straight to the local authority and could subsequently be moved up or down by that authority. In this way local authorities retain flexibility over taxation and voters can still judge them on value for money.
And importantly, this approach includes the complete abolition of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on owner-occupied residential property.
What's the point if we need to raise more tax, if it is revenue-neutral?
I'm also puzzled, becasue council tax is a modified version of a poll tax mitigated somewhat by the need to allow for single vs multiple occupiers. This new tax goes the other way - very hostile to the typical one or two oldies in an expensive SE England house - like Mrs May's so-called dementia tax, very unwelcome to the Tory party member demographic. It's\ so against the sustained Tory policy in recent yeats of pampering such folk in the tax system (e.g. on IHT, and allowances for various kinds of income) that I am startled. Is Mr Sunak being encouraged to wreck his own chances of becoming PM? Or is this being leaked by someone else with a motive?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
In Connecticut, an property tax assessment is equal to 70% of a property's estimated Fair Market Value as established by the Town Assessor in any given revaluation year. It’s payable by the registered owner I believe. There’s an appeal to a State Board. Seems to work there - at least I’m not aware of any significant efforts to repeal the system.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Looking at the article I linked, I think one strategic aim is to take away some reasons for "granny in a bog family house" staying put until death.
Abolition of SD would dramatically reduce cost to leave, and setting CT as a % of value would make it more expensive to stay the larger the house.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
Very similar idea about 10 paras down in a piece by Kevin Holinrake MP on Con Home last September. Slightly more sophisticated, in fact.
In place of the administrative challenge of council tax, in which properties are taxed through a confusing and distorting system of bands and exemptions, the PPT would apply a single rate of tax – 0.48 per cent of property value – to all homes. Owners rather than tenants would be responsible for the tax, removing over 8.7 million households from property tax altogether and saving councils an annual £400 million in administrative costs.
To incentivise more efficient usage of existing property, a surcharge on second, empty and offshore-owned homes would be introduced, as well as on plots of land that received council planning permission yet have been left vacant by developers. The policy is revenue neutral – raising the same amount of money for the Treasury as the scrapped taxes currently do.
To maintain the important democratic link between local expenditure and local taxation, Fairer Share recommends that the 0.48 per cent rate should consist of two components. A fixed national rate (0.32 per cent) which would go to central government for redistribution and an initial floating local rate (0.16 per cent) which would go straight to the local authority and could subsequently be moved up or down by that authority. In this way local authorities retain flexibility over taxation and voters can still judge them on value for money.
And importantly, this approach includes the complete abolition of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on owner-occupied residential property.
What's the point if we need to raise more tax, if it is revenue-neutral?
I'm also puzzled, becasue council tax is a modified version of a poll tax mitigated somewhat by the need to allow for single vs multiple occupiers. This new tax goes the other way - very hostile to the typical one or two oldies in an expensive SE England house - like Mrs May's so-called dementia tax, very unwelcome to the Tory party member demographic. It's\ so against the sustained Tory policy in recent yeats of pampering such folk in the tax system (e.g. on IHT, and allowances for various kinds of income) that I am startled. Is Mr Sunak being encouraged to wreck his own chances of becoming PM? Or is this being leaked by someone else with a motive?
Comments
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-data-shows-50-reduction-in-infections-14-days-after-first-vaccine-shot/
I don't think the 90% protection at the 3 week point in the Pfizer study can be applied to the elderly population. That is the figure for the total study population, and we know that vaccines are less effective in the elderly due to the phenomenon of immunosenesce. I think the AZN figure has the same issue, with the added caveat that the numbers of elderly in their studies were fewer still.
Israel is doing second Pfizer doses on schedule, so we will get limited further data from there, but we should see our own data on the effectiveness without the second dose by the end of February. Fingers crossed that it does provide some protection.
Hopefully we will be given an update in the next few days, showing stability, maybe a small reduction next week
Deaths unlikely to reduce until last week in Jan, maybe steady next week.
President Biden's inauguration is three days away but you can still get 1.01 Trump to leave office in 2021, and you can stake over £2 million. There is a small amount of 75 to be laid on 2025 which is slightly better. (70 has just appeared while I was typing this so someone thinks there is still time for Trump to expose the dodgy voting machines.)
Is murderer one of his flaws, or was that incidental?
If you aren't willing to pay for the extra heating, then spend it on basics so you need less heating, and you are less miserable working from your own house in winter if you need to.
In England the govt are currently offering a 2/3 subsidy, plus there are also schemes in Wales. It's not that expensive to do.
Mine is pretty good, but I still have plans to do a fair amount over the next year or two. In my case the people who rebuilt it 10 years ago did better than building regs, but it needs to be better.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
Cumulative numbers
PS: Have you heard of the BBC state propaganda unit where they do it for jobs and knighthoods, where everything is changed to suit UK state propaganda objectives, along with the majority of the newspapapers and paid dumplings. Lots of dummies in UK touch that with less than a bargepole.
I've not seen Malmesbury positivity chart in a while. Must be getting much improved now hopefully.
EDIT: LOL wrote that as charts were going up!
Sputnik is from the same stable.
If Mr Sheriddan wants to sit in a slurry pond, he will stink of shit.
No more cask strength turnip juice for you today.
Interesting for those thinking Trump could still somehow hold on. Surely even if he did expose dodgy voting machines by this point it would be too late without a literal military coup? Congress has already certified the results, if a fix emerged now he'd still be sworn in it seems.
The concept is fine; the context was not.
That might be two categories, as it could also describe the stuff that government knows but has kept secret from everyone else.
Liverpool 70% possession, 6 shots, 0 on target.
Man United 30% possession, 0 shots, 0 on target.
Watch there be a single shot from United against the run of play that goes in at this rate . . .
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19015057.covid-scottish-care-homes-targeted-anti-vaccine-groups-wholly-despicable-campaign/
People spending time at home with their family, not going to work, not going to work, not going shopping . . . it is perfect for suppressing the virus.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-55688013
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-eyes-tax-rises-in-march-budget-gmd3qpmkb
(I don't sub to it anymore, but I know a man who does)
OF course the news is still relentlessly grim but there's nothing shocking and new, not today.
A sign of things to come? Or a false dawn?
Could see this ending 1-0 either direction. Not confident.
Now we hear 500,000 have fled the city, maybe never to return.
Taxing those that remain might accentuate the decline.
I believe for instance in America the owner of the property pays the tax as opposed to the tenants.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/09/kevin-hollinrake-conservatives-must-consider-a-proportional-property-tax.html
In place of the administrative challenge of council tax, in which properties are taxed through a confusing and distorting system of bands and exemptions, the PPT would apply a single rate of tax – 0.48 per cent of property value – to all homes. Owners rather than tenants would be responsible for the tax, removing over 8.7 million households from property tax altogether and saving councils an annual £400 million in administrative costs.
To incentivise more efficient usage of existing property, a surcharge on second, empty and offshore-owned homes would be introduced, as well as on plots of land that received council planning permission yet have been left vacant by developers. The policy is revenue neutral – raising the same amount of money for the Treasury as the scrapped taxes currently do.
To maintain the important democratic link between local expenditure and local taxation, Fairer Share recommends that the 0.48 per cent rate should consist of two components. A fixed national rate (0.32 per cent) which would go to central government for redistribution and an initial floating local rate (0.16 per cent) which would go straight to the local authority and could subsequently be moved up or down by that authority. In this way local authorities retain flexibility over taxation and voters can still judge them on value for money.
And importantly, this approach includes the complete abolition of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on owner-occupied residential property.
As to determining property values, naturally this is difficult but in most cases only difficult because opinion places several values on any given house, eg the value if selling, the value if buying, the value at Islington dinner party conversation, the value when being humble, the value when humblebragging, the value when bragging. the value when valuing for estate duty purposes and finally the value you think it has for the purposes of any value related property tax.
There is a wealth of data widely available about the real value at any time, which is what sort of price would someone actually pay for it in a free market. The truth is about as well known as what a pint costs in Wetherspoons.
Would that balance it out for you?
John Lennon called him 'the greatest record producer of all time.'
However he was a also a convicted murderer
I don't know if the single occupancy discount would be retained, I assume not, though, so my bill would indeed rise.
Rent or the mortgage are based on the real value of the property, not the value decades ago, so why shouldn't property taxes be?
Besides if they cause house prices to go down then the tax goes down, as does the mortgage or rent for anyone who goes there in the future.
I'm also puzzled, becasue council tax is a modified version of a poll tax mitigated somewhat by the need to allow for single vs multiple occupiers. This new tax goes the other way - very hostile to the typical one or two oldies in an expensive SE England house - like Mrs May's so-called dementia tax, very unwelcome to the Tory party member demographic. It's\ so against the sustained Tory policy in recent yeats of pampering such folk in the tax system (e.g. on IHT, and allowances for various kinds of income) that I am startled. Is Mr Sunak being encouraged to wreck his own chances of becoming PM? Or is this being leaked by someone else with a motive?
Abolition of SD would dramatically reduce cost to leave, and setting CT as a % of value would make it more expensive to stay the larger the house.
Not sure anyone will be writing it on junior's.....
(1) His base will love it.
(2) He can make an economic case for it.
(3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.