politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the daily death rate edges closer to 1,000 YouGov finds str

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Finally the govt realises work must go on and Raab will be chairing a review into the lockdown.

As more sensible PB-ers advocated yesterday as others told us not to worry our pretty little heads about the democratic process.

I believe the point was that the situation is under constant review in any case in response to official advice but it was very unlikely any major decision was needed asl the lockdown is almost certainly not going to be relaxed right now, therefore it would not matter over much if a review was delayed.

Conversely I remember making the point that if an urgent decision was needed on anything Raab and the cabinet could do it, and what do you know it turns out they can when others were saying the alternative arrangements could not possibly work.

So I'm not sure what point you think you've made. You didn't need to worry about the democratic process as this decision shows it's working fine. The point about a review being delayed or not is separate and unless relaxation is imminent the point was it didnt matter if it was deferred a little, but again those saying Raab and co could make the call if needed were absolutely right and those flapping in a panic about non existent constitutional concerns were wrong.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Finally the govt realises work must go on and Raab will be chairing a review into the lockdown.

As more sensible PB-ers advocated yesterday as others told us not to worry our pretty little heads about the democratic process.

I believe the point was that the situation is under constant review in any case in response to official advice but it was very unlikely any major decision was needed asl the lockdown is almost certainly not going to be relaxed right now, therefore it would not matter over much if a review was delayed.

Conversely I remember making the point that if an urgent decision was needed on anything Raab and the cabinet could do it, and what do you know it turns out they can when others were saying the alternative arrangements could not possibly work.

So I'm not sure what point you think you've made. You didn't need to worry about the democratic process as this decision shows it's working fine. The point about a review being delayed or not is separate and unless relaxation is imminent the point was it didnt matter if it was deferred a little, but again those saying Raab and co could make the call if needed were absolutely right and those flapping in a panic about non existent constitutional concerns were wrong.

Raab is the de facto PM and has the authority to make decisions

The media tried to make a constitutional crisis out of nothing but that is par for the course for them

The grown up position is simply COBRA are the arbiters in all of this and of course they include all the experts plus the devolved nations first ministers and London mayor. They will make the recommendations, the cabinet will rubber stamp it, and Raab will implement it

It is all so clear and simple, but of course the media do not like an easy understood process and make themselves look ever so foolish by obscuring something that is easy to understand

Simples.........

NickPalmer said:

rottenborough said:

squareroot2 said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

If i was in a flat with a wife and kids and not allowed out.. i think i woild be seriously stressed in a v short time....

Totally agree. I was on here arguing it is madness to lockdown too soon because people wont stick it and indeed there will be massive mental health implications.

As a full time carer I know what spending vast amounts of time stuck at home is like, and I am lucky enough to have a garden and a huge book collection.

Yes, someone should write a book about the dynamics of lockdown (I'm sure they will). Living on my own, I find it fairly easy to adjust - I live in a small rented place, but there's plenty to do and, er, nobody telling me to do something else. Friends with partners and kids feel both more supported and more frustrated - the shared experience brings them closer together, yet the small irritations in almost any partnership assume much bigger importance. Mostly they say they're philosophical about it in the circs ("I'd rather be irritated than dead"), so I don't detect any great demand for restrictions to be lifted.

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

Is it me, or is it WAY too soon for Italy or Spain to even think about relaxing the lockdown. China was in lockdown for months and months.

Isn't this thing just going to pick up again in case numbers?

Spain's proposed relaxation of their lockdown looks like it might make it similiar to our currently. There isn't much restriction on travel to work unless you're customer facing here.

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

squareroot2 said:

Karma... i have zero sympathy for her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-derbyshire-52224325

A tempting position.

But I am against the cancel culture - and liking it just for your opponents it what feeds it.

I think her losing her political job was right, and inevitable as Starmer wants to take back control (Ha!) of the Labour party.

But to lose her actual job at a time like this? I can understand the position of a legal practise - they have the PR aspect of this to consider. But still...

Would you want to take legal advice from somebody whose outpourings are as ill-judged as this?

Her employers were within their rights to act as they have. Starmer was right to expel her. He'd be better advised to tell every member of the Labour Party to close down their Twitter account and come off Facebook.

The Corbyn Years will be looked upon in future years by the Hard Left as a Golden Age of Free Speech, when you could get away without sanction for posting your innermost anti-semitic, deeply unpleasant hate thoughts. The rest of us will just say thank God that they STFU.

Bring the company into disrupt is probably a suitable offence to justify gross misconduct. Sees unlucky but surely after 10 years of social media people know it's not the same as talking down the pub.

Malmesbury said:

NickPalmer said:

rottenborough said:

squareroot2 said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

If i was in a flat with a wife and kids and not allowed out.. i think i woild be seriously stressed in a v short time....

Totally agree. I was on here arguing it is madness to lockdown too soon because people wont stick it and indeed there will be massive mental health implications.

As a full time carer I know what spending vast amounts of time stuck at home is like, and I am lucky enough to have a garden and a huge book collection.

Yes, someone should write a book about the dynamics of lockdown (I'm sure they will). Living on my own, I find it fairly easy to adjust - I live in a small rented place, but there's plenty to do and, er, nobody telling me to do something else. Friends with partners and kids feel both more supported and more frustrated - the shared experience brings them closer together, yet the small irritations in almost any partnership assume much bigger importance. Mostly they say they're philosophical about it in the circs ("I'd rather be irritated than dead"), so I don't detect any great demand for restrictions to be lifted.

I think if you have space, are financially secure and have sufficient education to philosophise (in the positive sense) on the situation, then things are not bad. Not having COVID19 is also a bonus...

Sadly, there are many who do not have those things. One friend, for example, lives on her emotions - quite literally, and proud of it - she processes the world around her on feelings. Regards those who live by reasoning as "cold". She is having a terrible time of it.

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

squareroot2 said:

Karma... i have zero sympathy for her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-derbyshire-52224325

A tempting position.

But I am against the cancel culture - and liking it just for your opponents it what feeds it.

I think her losing her political job was right, and inevitable as Starmer wants to take back control (Ha!) of the Labour party.

But to lose her actual job at a time like this? I can understand the position of a legal practise - they have the PR aspect of this to consider. But still...

Would you want to take legal advice from somebody whose outpourings are as ill-judged as this?

Her employers were within their rights to act as they have. Starmer was right to expel her. He'd be better advised to tell every member of the Labour Party to close down their Twitter account and come off Facebook.

The Corbyn Years will be looked upon in future years by the Hard Left as a Golden Age of Free Speech, when you could get away without sanction for posting your innermost anti-semitic, deeply unpleasant hate thoughts. The rest of us will just say thank God that they STFU.

TOPPING said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

All sensible questions from the media.

Socky said:

nico67 said:

I wonder if the pandemic will prove to be what stops the BBC from being attacked by the government.

Given the shockingly poor performance by the BBC, I think it only delays the inevitable. The BBC had the choice to become a proper public service broadcaster, and flunked it.

nico67 said:

Regardless of what people think of the BBC for many it’s more trusted than any other resource.

Anecdotally the BBC is treated no different (i.e. held in equal contempt) as any other media source. The BBC is the only one we are forced by law to pay for.

nico67 said:

24hrs to save the NHS might be replaced with 24 hrs to save the BBC by Labour .

The unstated assumption that Labour will support the BBC says a great deal...

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.

Nobody is going to ignore the media. There are plenty on here who claim to despise Sky News and would glass Kay Burley given the chance but spend every day ragewatching it.

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.

Nobody is going to ignore the media. There are plenty on here who claim to despise Sky News and would glass Kay Burley given the chance but spend every day ragewatching it.

There's also plenty of us who have simply given up watching the utter inanity of the likes of Burley and Peston. We'll tune back in when they start using scientists to ask scientific questions of those in charge.

Slackbladder said:

Is it me, or is it WAY too soon for Italy or Spain to even think about relaxing the lockdown. China was in lockdown for months and months.

Isn't this thing just going to pick up again in case numbers?

TOPPING said:

BannedinnParis said:

TOPPING said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

All sensible questions from the media.

perhaps, but timing is everything

They should all keep quiet until the govt says it's ok to ask questions?

CD13 said:

Mr Topping,

The issue is the quality of the questions. How do you manage forensic scrutiny when all you ask is 'Has Boris shit the bed yet?" over and over again. Or even worse, show that counting your own fingers is an intellectual mountain.

kinabalu said:

I don't want or expect a GNU but I can see the appeal. It's the Starmer effect. I sense that many people deep down - including Conservative supporters - would rather he was in charge right now instead of Boris Johnson. Not because Boris is ailing, if anything that has shored up his position, but because Starmer makes you feel safe, which is what people are craving as the virus stalks the land. They do not want to be stimulated, either positively or negatively, they want to feel secure and looked after. I'm sure they realize - since people are not fools - that Starmer could only be Deputy PM in the GNU, with Boris staying nominally in charge, but that would probably suffice.

The other (more technical) point to note in favour of a GNU is that the GE mandate from Dec 12th last year has been effectively nullified. The Conservative majority was derived from two things - distaste for Jeremy Corbyn and a weariness with the Brexit debate. Both are now redundant. There is no Jeremy Corbyn and there is no Brexit debate. Indeed there is no Brexit and precious little appetite for that to change. So we have a government with no mandate but no practical possibility of a new election. A GNU does seem an elegant solution to this impasse. Combat the virus, that is the one and only task and it suits a GNU better than it does any one party. But anyway, whatever, it's not happening.

Malmesbury said:

Socky said:

nico67 said:

I wonder if the pandemic will prove to be what stops the BBC from being attacked by the government.

Given the shockingly poor performance by the BBC, I think it only delays the inevitable. The BBC had the choice to become a proper public service broadcaster, and flunked it.

nico67 said:

Regardless of what people think of the BBC for many it’s more trusted than any other resource.

Anecdotally the BBC is treated no different (i.e. held in equal contempt) as any other media source. The BBC is the only one we are forced by law to pay for.

nico67 said:

24hrs to save the NHS might be replaced with 24 hrs to save the BBC by Labour .

The unstated assumption that Labour will support the BBC says a great deal...

The question is not supporting the BBC - it is that, in the age of trivial digital encryption, is the TV license still acceptable as a solution?

Did you know that scrambling BBC TV was proposed? The current system was only implemented because the scrambling technology at the time was easily breakable. That has been fixed.

When TV went digital, a chap at the BBC was very proud that he had amended the spec for digital receivers for the UK - instead of mandating that every receiver would support encryption, it allowed ones that didn't.

He was proud because that would mean that there would be some TVs/boxes that couldn't receive am encrypted broadcast. Which in turn meant that the BBC was "safe" from the lIcense fee being replaced with encryption.

The license fee is an accident of the history of technology that has become a totem. Who thinks that clogging up the courts with license fee cases makes any sense?

If the BBC has had the guts to grasp the nettle, get control of the world wide rights to the content they pay for (!), go encrypted... Studies suggested that in the US alone there would be enough paying subscribers to exceed the current license fee...

Which opens an interesting possibility - The BBC. Free to UK nationals. Paid for by foreigners - willingly.

Now *that* would have been a grand vision.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Finally the govt realises work must go on and Raab will be chairing a review into the lockdown.

As more sensible PB-ers advocated yesterday as others told us not to worry our pretty little heads about the democratic process.

I believe the point was that the situation is under constant review in any case in response to official advice but it was very unlikely any major decision was needed asl the lockdown is almost certainly not going to be relaxed right now, therefore it would not matter over much if a review was delayed.

Conversely I remember making the point that if an urgent decision was needed on anything Raab and the cabinet could do it, and what do you know it turns out they can when others were saying the alternative arrangements could not possibly work.

So I'm not sure what point you think you've made. You didn't need to worry about the democratic process as this decision shows it's working fine. The point about a review being delayed or not is separate and unless relaxation is imminent the point was it didnt matter if it was deferred a little, but again those saying Raab and co could make the call if needed were absolutely right and those flapping in a panic about non existent constitutional concerns were wrong.

Raab is the de facto PM and has the authority to make decisions

The media tried to make a constitutional crisis out of nothing but that is par for the course for them

The grown up position is simply COBRA are the arbiters in all of this and of course they include all the experts plus the devolved nations first ministers and London mayor. They will make the recommendations, the cabinet will rubber stamp it, and Raab will implement it

It is all so clear and simple, but of course the media do not like an easy understood process and make themselves look ever so foolish by obscuring something that is easy to understand

Simples.........

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it..."

Do you agree that is the position or not

Jonathan said:

TOPPING said:

I suppose the vaguely interesting element of some PB-ers' vitriolic and lunatic rantings against the BBC and "the media" is that just such rantings are being expressed word for word by Continuity Momentum in whatever forum they congregate in.

Current critics of the media fall into two camps,

1) Those on the right who think we should have a loyal North Korean style media supportive of the government and uncritical of our dear leaders at this difficult time.
2) Those on the left who think that has already happened.

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Socky said:

nico67 said:

I wonder if the pandemic will prove to be what stops the BBC from being attacked by the government.

Given the shockingly poor performance by the BBC, I think it only delays the inevitable. The BBC had the choice to become a proper public service broadcaster, and flunked it.

nico67 said:

Regardless of what people think of the BBC for many it’s more trusted than any other resource.

Anecdotally the BBC is treated no different (i.e. held in equal contempt) as any other media source. The BBC is the only one we are forced by law to pay for.

nico67 said:

24hrs to save the NHS might be replaced with 24 hrs to save the BBC by Labour .

The unstated assumption that Labour will support the BBC says a great deal...

The question is not supporting the BBC - it is that, in the age of trivial digital encryption, is the TV license still acceptable as a solution?

Did you know that scrambling BBC TV was proposed? The current system was only implemented because the scrambling technology at the time was easily breakable. That has been fixed.

When TV went digital, a chap at the BBC was very proud that he had amended the spec for digital receivers for the UK - instead of mandating that every receiver would support encryption, it allowed ones that didn't.

He was proud because that would mean that there would be some TVs/boxes that couldn't receive am encrypted broadcast. Which in turn meant that the BBC was "safe" from the lIcense fee being replaced with encryption.

The license fee is an accident of the history of technology that has become a totem. Who thinks that clogging up the courts with license fee cases makes any sense?

If the BBC has had the guts to grasp the nettle, get control of the world wide rights to the content they pay for (!), go encrypted... Studies suggested that in the US alone there would be enough paying subscribers to exceed the current license fee...

Which opens an interesting possibility - The BBC. Free to UK nationals. Paid for by foreigners - willingly.

Now *that* would have been a grand vision.

The amazing thing is that there's a huge market for the BBC's output in other countries, yet most of it is either not available at all, condensed onto one satellite channel or accessed through 'other' means in various expat communities. The occasional programme (Top Gear, Bake Off) makes it onto a local channel.

There would be a need to block out a few programmes (mostly live sport), but there's a global market of seven billion people for the iPlayer if they have the balls to offer it to everyone.

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.

Nobody is going to ignore the media. There are plenty on here who claim to despise Sky News and would glass Kay Burley given the chance but spend every day ragewatching it.

There's also plenty of us who have simply given up watching the utter inanity of the likes of Burley and Peston. We'll tune back in when they start using scientists to ask scientific questions of those in charge.

Why aren't the major networks using their science/maths journalists rather than the political bods.

I don't even think we can come out of lockdown before testing is ramped up massively. Even the USA seems to be scores ahead of us on that point.

OldKingCole said:

Completely off topic, but I don’t suppose HMQ will be anywhere near a gathering of loyal OAP’s collecting their Maundy Money today.
IIRC that went on right through the War.

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

CD13 said:

Mr Topping,

The issue is the quality of the questions. How do you manage forensic scrutiny when all you ask is 'Has Boris shit the bed yet?" over and over again. Or even worse, show that counting your own fingers is an intellectual mountain.

I appreciate we would all do much better than these so-called "journalists" but whereas in our minds we would ask one, incisive, data-driven multi-variate regression model-relevant question that would so floor the politicians that they would have no option other than to collapse and answer with tearful gratitude at our perspicacity, in reality, the politicians can be devious little shits and often need the Route One treatment, loud and often.

My objection to the current style is that it is an easy ride for the politicians.

Consider if I asked you to speculate when you might go to the pub next. Answer is "I can't speculate because I don't know when the pubs will be open again."

No information gained by anyone.

Instead I ask - "Have you made any plans to go to the pub, when the lockdown lifts?" Answers "No", "Yes..." etc

So, for schools -

Soft question - "Can you speculate on whether schools may or may not open next term?"

Harder question - "If schools can't reopen for the next term - what plans have been made for remote learning / online classes?"

felix said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Socky said:

nico67 said:

I wonder if the pandemic will prove to be what stops the BBC from being attacked by the government.

Given the shockingly poor performance by the BBC, I think it only delays the inevitable. The BBC had the choice to become a proper public service broadcaster, and flunked it.

nico67 said:

Regardless of what people think of the BBC for many it’s more trusted than any other resource.

Anecdotally the BBC is treated no different (i.e. held in equal contempt) as any other media source. The BBC is the only one we are forced by law to pay for.

nico67 said:

24hrs to save the NHS might be replaced with 24 hrs to save the BBC by Labour .

The unstated assumption that Labour will support the BBC says a great deal...

The question is not supporting the BBC - it is that, in the age of trivial digital encryption, is the TV license still acceptable as a solution?

Did you know that scrambling BBC TV was proposed? The current system was only implemented because the scrambling technology at the time was easily breakable. That has been fixed.

When TV went digital, a chap at the BBC was very proud that he had amended the spec for digital receivers for the UK - instead of mandating that every receiver would support encryption, it allowed ones that didn't.

He was proud because that would mean that there would be some TVs/boxes that couldn't receive am encrypted broadcast. Which in turn meant that the BBC was "safe" from the lIcense fee being replaced with encryption.

The license fee is an accident of the history of technology that has become a totem. Who thinks that clogging up the courts with license fee cases makes any sense?

If the BBC has had the guts to grasp the nettle, get control of the world wide rights to the content they pay for (!), go encrypted... Studies suggested that in the US alone there would be enough paying subscribers to exceed the current license fee...

Which opens an interesting possibility - The BBC. Free to UK nationals. Paid for by foreigners - willingly.

Now *that* would have been a grand vision.

The amazing thing is that there's a huge market for the BBC's output in other countries, yet most of it is either not available at all, condensed onto one satellite channel or accessed through 'other' means in various expat communities. The occasional programme (Top Gear, Bake Off) makes it onto a local channel.

There would be a need to block out a few programmes (mostly live sport), but there's a global market of seven billion people for the iPlayer if they have the balls to offer it to everyone.

There are a ton of BBC and other UK programmes shown on the Spanish networks - you just have to change the language from the Spanish dub back to English.

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

TGOHF666 said:

Minimum pricing doesn’t work.

https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1248170773602349056?s=21

Sandpit said:

felix said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Socky said:

nico67 said:

I wonder if the pandemic will prove to be what stops the BBC from being attacked by the government.

Given the shockingly poor performance by the BBC, I think it only delays the inevitable. The BBC had the choice to become a proper public service broadcaster, and flunked it.

nico67 said:

Regardless of what people think of the BBC for many it’s more trusted than any other resource.

Anecdotally the BBC is treated no different (i.e. held in equal contempt) as any other media source. The BBC is the only one we are forced by law to pay for.

nico67 said:

24hrs to save the NHS might be replaced with 24 hrs to save the BBC by Labour .

The unstated assumption that Labour will support the BBC says a great deal...

The question is not supporting the BBC - it is that, in the age of trivial digital encryption, is the TV license still acceptable as a solution?

Did you know that scrambling BBC TV was proposed? The current system was only implemented because the scrambling technology at the time was easily breakable. That has been fixed.

When TV went digital, a chap at the BBC was very proud that he had amended the spec for digital receivers for the UK - instead of mandating that every receiver would support encryption, it allowed ones that didn't.

He was proud because that would mean that there would be some TVs/boxes that couldn't receive am encrypted broadcast. Which in turn meant that the BBC was "safe" from the lIcense fee being replaced with encryption.

The license fee is an accident of the history of technology that has become a totem. Who thinks that clogging up the courts with license fee cases makes any sense?

If the BBC has had the guts to grasp the nettle, get control of the world wide rights to the content they pay for (!), go encrypted... Studies suggested that in the US alone there would be enough paying subscribers to exceed the current license fee...

Which opens an interesting possibility - The BBC. Free to UK nationals. Paid for by foreigners - willingly.

Now *that* would have been a grand vision.

The amazing thing is that there's a huge market for the BBC's output in other countries, yet most of it is either not available at all, condensed onto one satellite channel or accessed through 'other' means in various expat communities. The occasional programme (Top Gear, Bake Off) makes it onto a local channel.

There would be a need to block out a few programmes (mostly live sport), but there's a global market of seven billion people for the iPlayer if they have the balls to offer it to everyone.

There are a ton of BBC and other UK programmes shown on the Spanish networks - you just have to change the language from the Spanish dub back to English.

That's one big advantage of digital TV, that it's now possible to offer multiple audio tracks on a programme. I remember when I was in Spain a couple of decades ago chasing down V.O. (original audio, usually subtitled) movies in cinemas, to avoid the dubbed versions in most of the multiplexes.

Benpointer said:

USA has become the country with the most Covid-19 deaths today.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.

But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.

Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.

Whose finger is on the button?

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Benpointer said:

USA has become the country with the most Covid-19 deaths today.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.

But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.

Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.

Whose finger is on the button?

Raab through Cobra.

Cobra make the decisions and the first ministers implement the same decisions more or less across the devolved nations

Just what is so difficult to understand

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1248163305203683328

Interesting discussion in the replies

johnoundle said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Not to mention the behavioural scientists that warned how quickly people would get fed up with lock down & were rubbished.

The media is pathetic.

AlastairMeeks said:

Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.

Whose finger is on the button?

MattW said:

Slackbladder said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I wonder if we can reasonably hope that Boris will be moved out of intensive care back to normal hospotal over the next day or so.
The analysis of ICU outcomes, although limited only to the extreme outcomes (recovering rapidly or dying rapidly) did indicate that if you were on the less-ill end of the population moved into ICU, the median time for recovery was 4 days. We've had indications that they are being very careful and Boris is fairly likely to be in that less-ill end of those moved into ICU. Of course, their caution on the precautionary end may lead them to keep him in still longer, but there could feasibly be good news over the Easter Weekend on the Boris front, I guess.

Easter Sunday...he will be risen.

The Docs need to use their loaf...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.

But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.

Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.

Whose finger is on the button?

Raab through Cobra.

Cobra make the decisions and the first ministers implement the same decisions more or less across the devolved nations

Just what is so difficult to understand

Martin_Kinsella said:

johnoundle said:

rottenborough said:

This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.

Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.

I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.

Not to mention the behavioural scientists that warned how quickly people would get fed up with lock down & were rubbished.

The media is pathetic.

Absolutely right. I struggle to think of a single journalist covering this who has been anything other than poor. It is all about the journalist themselves and all about trying to trip the government up to feed the 24 hour news cycle and the hacks ego. PPE is the latest. The article on BBC Breakfast news was appalling and merely seems to stoke up fear in our health staff. I guess the press won't be happy until everyone is in a Hazmat suit.

The bruising Peston received from the Deputy CMO was marvellous and thoroughly deserved yet from Peston's twitter feed he was the victim.

Allowing hacks, or idiots with big mouths like Piers Morgan, to drive policy is insane.

The main problem we have is this is being largely covered by political journalists not science journalists.

kinabalu said:

I don't want or expect a GNU but I can see the appeal. It's the Starmer effect. I sense that many people deep down - including Conservative supporters - would rather he was in charge right now instead of Boris Johnson. Not because Boris is ailing, if anything that has shored up his position, but because Starmer makes you feel safe, which is what people are craving as the virus stalks the land. They do not want to be stimulated, either positively or negatively, they want to feel secure and looked after. I'm sure they realize - since people are not fools - that Starmer could only be Deputy PM in the GNU, with Boris staying nominally in charge, but that would probably suffice.

The other (more technical) point to note in favour of a GNU is that the GE mandate from Dec 12th last year has been effectively nullified. The Conservative majority was derived from two things - distaste for Jeremy Corbyn and a weariness with the Brexit debate. Both are now redundant. There is no Jeremy Corbyn and there is no Brexit debate. Indeed there is no Brexit and precious little appetite for that to change. So we have a government with no mandate but no practical possibility of a new election. A GNU does seem an elegant solution to this impasse. Combat the virus, that is the one and only task and it suits a GNU better than it does any one party. But anyway, whatever, it's not happening.

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.

This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?

This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.

The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.

But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.

Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.

Whose finger is on the button?

Raab through Cobra.

Cobra make the decisions and the first ministers implement the same decisions more or less across the devolved nations

Just what is so difficult to understand

Roll forward six months. Imagine the Prime Minister has neither died nor recovered sufficiently to resume his duties. Britain has neither a Prime Minister in reality nor any person taking responsibility for decisions. Who resigns if the government fails? How is that person replaced?

That is the position today. Who does the buck stop with, if that is not an obsolete idea? Because as of right now the answer is no one.