politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak now level-pegging with Johnson on who would make the “be

eek said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

I think Sunak might trigger the Vassal State option, aka SM+CU, if he sees it as a way to cluster-unfuck Brexit . He's less invested in Brexit than Cummings-Johnson. We're obviously not going to rejoin and going down the SM+CU route is a) the most aligned you can be to the EU without actually being a member and b) would spike Labour guns.

And all for a mere £450m a week (after we inevitably reach parity with the euro)...

It depends on how desperate the politicos are to get out from the mess. If they are desperate the money won't matter and if they aren't they will let things drift in a tolerable craptitude.

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Path to glory. Go shopping without one. Get caught and fined. Refuse to pay fine. Go to trial as a test case. Lose and go to jail. In jail write book, "Maskerado: How one man said 'No!' to the British State telling him what to wear at Tesco".

On release, it all takes off. Best seller. Point made. Fortune made.

But I foresee a problem with step 2. I sense this will not be aggressively policed and so you will probably struggle to get into trouble. You may need to start shouting in the shop - "look, no mask, no mask!" - to get the requisite attention.

Or possibly go full libertarian commando, no mask and naked from the waist down. That'd get their attention.

Why do a Winnie the Pooh when you could go total Naked Rambler?

tlg86 said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because we need to lift the Draconian restrictions. Social distancing is an evil that may have been a necessary evil but is a burdensome restriction on liberty.

As we lift those burdens alternative solutions are required to take their place.

Or instead of a mask would you rather be a lockdown Nazi keeping us locked up forever but no masks while we are locked at home?

No of course not. Yet if that is the case, why not say that? ‘We are bringing in shopping masks ahead of binning the 1m rule later’.

Of course, someone somehow might have said that - but the government’s messaging is so dire I got lost in the fog of war.

The governments been lifting the lockdown for a while now. They have said they're trying to reduce it from 2m to 1m+ and masks fall under the 1m+

I must have missed that.

It’s hard to imagine the shopping masks and the 1m rule are linked - I mean they might be but it’s very odd to implement them a month apart if so!

The rate of reduction in the R has definitely slowed down since we reopened non-essential shops and there has been a levelling off in the number of deaths as well. Mask wearing will hopefully the decline in both to restart. By death date England is seeing between 60 and 80 deaths per day, that figure is now not falling. There is a reason for that.

True, but there are some big differences around the country. Perhaps mask wearing should be introduced in the areas where the virus is most prevalent.

It will be much easier to implement nationally and will also help prevent local outbreaks.

Boris getting pegged by Sunak?

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

I'm back in the office.

I waited six hours today for my line manager to have a meeting with his line manager so they could get back to me on what I'm supposed to be doing. I worked for two hours then clocked off at going home time.

If I'd been working from home, I would have got up an hour or two later, enjoyed chatting with some friends online, checked in with work, found out there was nothing to do until mid afternoon, gone out and enjoyed a walk, played some xbox, then come back to my desk when it was time to do some work and work at least four or five more hours.

As it is they wasted six hours of my day and I worked for two.

But yay. Offices.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sunak, born into privilege and married a billionaire.

Starmer, born into a working class family and worked his way up to be director of public prosecutions.

I know which one understands ordinary people more.

I know that 'understanding ordinary people more' is a useless metric, among many other useless metrics. Plenty of people who understand ordinary people but are utterly useless, and plenty of ones who understand ordinary people not at all, yet may be competent and effective leaders.

Whatever the respective qualities of Keir and Sunak, that one was working class and the other not strikes me as being entirely inconsequential. The kinds of places where people compare notes on their upbringing deprivation indices are dark dark places.

https://twitter.com/MilesKlee/status/1283067098609053697?s=20

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

I'm seriously trying to work out how I move to what I suspect would be the preferred long term solution of 2 days a week in the office and 3 days from home...

The problem is 2 days in the office is going to cost me as much as 5 days at the moment...

Week in office, week at home. A colleague works the opposite with a deep clean of the shared desk at weekends?

MaxPB said:

Especially since the wearing of masks will allow for a whole raft of other interference to be rolled back.

If that were true, I'd be the first to welcome it. But we are giving up a concrete right for a vague promise, which, as Burke said, is almost always going to be a mistake.

The government should have announced the whole raft rolling back first, then the mask wearing later.

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

Well, I don't like WFH but it is the W that is the pain, not the H.

TheScreamingEagles said:

So who is Roy Cropper?

Can someone explain that reference to me as I've never watched Coronation Street.

You have never lived, it is everyone's dream to buy a bacon roll in Roy's cafe

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

I disagree, at least outside London. Pretty much everyone I know who is currently WFH is sick of it and wants to be back in the office.

I'm seriously trying to work out how I move to what I suspect would be the preferred long term solution of 2 days a week in the office and 3 days from home...

The problem is 2 days in the office is going to cost me as much as 5 days at the moment...

Week in office, week at home. A colleague works the opposite with a deep clean of the shared desk at weekends?

I have done WFH for 20 years now , just brilliant , no commuting and served meals and drinks all day. Hard to beat.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/katyballs/status/1282967765159223296
https://twitter.com/katyballs/status/1283091932525334529
https://twitter.com/katyballs/status/1283092162717130755
https://twitter.com/katyballs/status/1283092423191691269

The Tories are rattled.

I don't see that.

Politically engaged, for the first time in a long while, is how I'd describe it.

LadyG said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Because I'm not using the Underground, in effect I've got a £4000 pay rise

Until you get fired, because WFH collapses the economies of big cities, leading to an enormous Depression everywhere

Not if more of those WFH use cafes, bars, restaurants and shops and buses in their home town or village even if they do not use such services as regularly in the big city

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Especially since the wearing of masks will allow for a whole raft of other interference to be rolled back.

If that were true, I'd be the first to welcome it. But we are giving up a concrete right for a vague promise, which, as Burke said, is almost always going to be a mistake.

The government should have announced the whole raft rolling back first, then the mask wearing later.

No, you get people to wear the masks first, get everyone used to it and then get rid of indoor social distancing where mask wearing is mandatory like shops.

But the first will happen and the second may not, because governments love imposing controls (and raising taxes) and hate getting rid of them (lowering taxes).

That's especially true of governments by focus group like this one.

Biggest disappearing from a McCann team since

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

tlg86 said:

Interesting first half at Wigan...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53316000

Wigan 7-0 Hull

Bloody hell! From 8 shots on target.

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

I think Sunak might trigger the Vassal State option, aka SM+CU, if he sees it as a way to cluster-unfuck Brexit . He's less invested in Brexit than Cummings-Johnson. We're obviously not going to rejoin and going down the SM+CU route is a) the most aligned you can be to the EU without actually being a member and b) would spike Labour guns.

Maybe but that would require free movement and not allow trade deals by the UK and see mass defections of Leavers from the Tories back to the Brexit Party

Depends how badly the preparations go. Let's face it, they're not going well for something due to start in just over 5 months time. The hypothetical I'm imagining is one where the choice is between signing up for vassaldom (which undoubtedly will lose the 2024 election for the reason you suggest) and knowingly putting the country through such a mess that the 2029 election is a writeoff as well.

Sometimes the choice is between two terrible options.

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1283105264162541568

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

That's the virus. Once the virus is gone people will be able to go out and socialise without having to worry about their commute home.

It's what I did when I WFH in Edinburgh in the Before, on days when I didn't commute to Glasgow.

Maybe it's different in London, but most of my socialising is done after work because my social circle all work around the sameish area, we all live quite far away from each other and when we meet on weekends it requires a lot more planning and driving.

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

Don't tar us all with your brush, it will give me opportunities to socialise I didnt have when I commuted....just because you are a sourpuss doesn't mean we all are

Who are you going to socialize with, and where? Everyone will be unemployed, students won’t go to uni, half the pubs will be shuttered.

Your ‘socializing’ will consist of sharing a four pack of Aldi cider, on a bench. At a distance.

There are many activities I want to do that I can't because commuting takes my money and time. Such as taking back up martial arts again. Sadly while commuting I don't get home in time to go do it

Good luck on doing martial arts during a plague spread by heavy breathing near other people

I did say when the lockdown ends, if I am forced back to the office then no socialising for me as there hasnt been for the last 10 years. Complaints from people like you about what lockdown has cost like going to restaurants and bars are frankly laughable.....Most of the country can't actually afford to before lockdown except infrequently in any case.....instead we slog to work at 6am eat at our desks return home around 8pm and hope the money lasts till the end of the month. For a treat we may order a takeaway once maybe twice a month or buy some cheap beer at a supermarket. Locked in due to lack of money is normal life. The only real difference lockdown has made for me is I dont have to get up early and come home late and don't have to deal with obnoxious people I can't stand at the office

TheScreamingEagles said:

Who could have predicted this?

https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1283105264162541568

*Not* the people who said that Sage was just a front for Doris? (My new portmanteau for Dominic and Boris).

felix said:

In Spain masks have been compulsory in almost all public spaces for at least 2 months. From tomorrow here in Andalucia we must wear them in all public open and closed spaces, when driving with others than immediate family, on the beach, except when in the water, swimming pools the same, etc, etc, etc... and the daytime temperatures will stay above 30 degrees for another 2 months. Fail to comply and instant €100 fines. Why the f*** am I reading all of this bollocks on here of whingers and moaners about civil liberties. I can only quote the inimitable Malc G and call you all a load of useless t*****s! Get a life.

Well spain is notorious for its love of civil liberties after all

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

The world has always changed, but previously it's always involved people remaining in face-to-face contact with each other most of the time.

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

Don't tar us all with your brush, it will give me opportunities to socialise I didnt have when I commuted....just because you are a sourpuss doesn't mean we all are

Who are you going to socialize with, and where? Everyone will be unemployed, students won’t go to uni, half the pubs will be shuttered.

Your ‘socializing’ will consist of sharing a four pack of Aldi cider, on a bench. At a distance.

There are many activities I want to do that I can't because commuting takes my money and time. Such as taking back up martial arts again. Sadly while commuting I don't get home in time to go do it

Good luck on doing martial arts during a plague spread by heavy breathing near other people

I did say when the lockdown ends, if I am forced back to the office then no socialising for me as there hasnt been for the last 10 years. Complaints from people like you about what lockdown has cost like going to restaurants and bars are frankly laughable.....Most of the country can't actually afford to before lockdown except infrequently in any case.....instead we slog to work at 6am eat at our desks return home around 8pm and hope the money lasts till the end of the month. For a treat we may order a takeaway once maybe twice a month or buy some cheap beer at a supermarket. Locked in due to lack of money is normal life. The only real difference lockdown has made for me is I dont have to get up early and come home late and don't have to deal with obnoxious people I can't stand at the office

Point taken.

I still fear for the wider economy, and all of us, if the leisure/entertainment industry collapses

shrugs it is my pet hate on here. Most that post here aren't struggling, they either are high up in the hierarchy of companies or run companies themselves. Few are struggling at the end of the month or dreading the unexpected bill like a car repair or boiler repair. They see things through their bubble. I try and puncture it occasionally

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

I think Sunak might trigger the Vassal State option, aka SM+CU, if he sees it as a way to cluster-unfuck Brexit . He's less invested in Brexit than Cummings-Johnson. We're obviously not going to rejoin and going down the SM+CU route is a) the most aligned you can be to the EU without actually being a member and b) would spike Labour guns.

Maybe but that would require free movement and not allow trade deals by the UK and see mass defections of Leavers from the Tories back to the Brexit Party

Depends how badly the preparations go. Let's face it, they're not going well for something due to start in just over 5 months time. The hypothetical I'm imagining is one where the choice is between signing up for vassaldom (which undoubtedly will lose the 2024 election for the reason you suggest) and knowingly putting the country through such a mess that the 2029 election is a writeoff as well.

Sometimes the choice is between two terrible options.

If the Tory Party signed up to the SM and CU and full free movement and no trade deals not only would it lose the 2024 election it would likely come third in the 2029 election too and be overtaken by the Brexit Party which would become the main opposition to Starmer's Labour government under a resurgent Farage or Tice.

In a generation, it may be possible the Tory Party comes around to accepting staying in the SM but it would have to have been a Labour government maybe propped up by the LDs that would have taken us back in and a number of Tory defeats on a hard Brexit platform leading to that acceptance

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

Don't tar us all with your brush, it will give me opportunities to socialise I didnt have when I commuted....just because you are a sourpuss doesn't mean we all are

Who are you going to socialize with, and where? Everyone will be unemployed, students won’t go to uni, half the pubs will be shuttered.

Your ‘socializing’ will consist of sharing a four pack of Aldi cider, on a bench. At a distance.

There are many activities I want to do that I can't because commuting takes my money and time. Such as taking back up martial arts again. Sadly while commuting I don't get home in time to go do it

Good luck on doing martial arts during a plague spread by heavy breathing near other people

I did say when the lockdown ends, if I am forced back to the office then no socialising for me as there hasnt been for the last 10 years. Complaints from people like you about what lockdown has cost like going to restaurants and bars are frankly laughable.....Most of the country can't actually afford to before lockdown except infrequently in any case.....instead we slog to work at 6am eat at our desks return home around 8pm and hope the money lasts till the end of the month. For a treat we may order a takeaway once maybe twice a month or buy some cheap beer at a supermarket. Locked in due to lack of money is normal life. The only real difference lockdown has made for me is I dont have to get up early and come home late and don't have to deal with obnoxious people I can't stand at the office

Point taken.

I still fear for the wider economy, and all of us, if the leisure/entertainment industry collapses

shrugs it is my pet hate on here. Most that post here aren't struggling, they either are high up in the hierarchy of companies or run companies themselves. Few are struggling at the end of the month or dreading the unexpected bill like a car repair or boiler repair. They see things through their bubble. I try and puncture it occasionally

I am not struggling - but I have plenty of friends and relatives that are in desperate trouble already. Hence, perhaps, my concern

I had many friends and relatives like that pre brexit and pre corona no one gave a toss about them then.

LadyG said:

WTF is up with the UK data today? 1,200 new cases, 138 new deaths?!

Bulk addition of historical data from Wales. The Welsh health service failed to add loads of new Pillar 2 data for a few weeks.

LadyG said:

WTF is up with the UK data today? 1,200 new cases, 138 new deaths?!

A lot of those cases may be from a long time ago. David Paton's figures were showing around 20 deaths a day the last time I checked.

LadyG said:

MaxPB said:

LadyG said:

WTF is up with the UK data today? 1,200 new cases, 138 new deaths?!

Bulk addition of historical data from Wales. The Welsh health service failed to add loads of new Pillar 2 data for a few weeks.

Ah, ta. I missed that.

Twas alarming at first glance

On a separate note, Sweden up to 549 deaths per head now and on current trends should overtake Italy on 579 deaths per head within a week to be 4th on deaths per head globally after Belgium, the UK and Spain

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

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Anabobazina said:

Nerys does have a point.

She asks why introduce masks in all shops (even boutiques, which are rarely visited by the old, infirm and obese) when all the other measures have so obviously worked?

This is what I can’t grasp either.

It’s Tuesday, usually the worst day of the week, yet the deaths announced are very few. The mitigation strategies have clearly worked.

Why then, introduce a fairly draconian one now? I just can’t understand the thinking,

Because Brexit has reached the f**king embarrassing stage of we haven't got a deal with the EU and we've just pissed off one of the other two economic giants...

Today's mask argument has completely hid the need for a 15,000 space lorry processing site in Ashford...

Which leads to an interesting question linked to the header.

Imagine, hypothetically if you like, that the Johnson government's implementation of Brexit shows strong signs of being a clustershambles. Just hypothetically.

Now imagine that you are a youngish centre-right politician. You've made it a long way up the greasy pole, but you are naturally ambitious for more. You support the concept of Brexit, but you are planning on a career for many years after 2021. You also have enough of a numerate business background to be able to read the warning signs.

Obviously, you don't want to be one to push the emergency STOP button, even if you can locate it. (Someone seems to have disconnected the one which was there last month). But at the same time, you can see the warning lights flashing all around.

Just hypothetically, what do you do and when? Because I wouldn't have a clue. Might be why I'm not Chancel... not that I mean him, anyway.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter as its usually possible to fix problems retrospectively (yes there is still pain but you can correct the mistake).

For Brexit I'm not sure if the mistakes that are likely to be made this week are fixable (one mistake has already been made as we've confirmed China is no longer a friend, I believe us telling the EU the same is due to occur tomorrow).

Well yes. The poll tax is the textbook example of a bad mistake that was reversed, and the price was the PM's head and the seat loss in 1992. This has the potential to be much worse and harder to fix. But also harder to pre-empt.

So if you're Ri... illy ambitious (think I got away with that one) and a cabinet minister, what do you do?

I think Sunak might trigger the Vassal State option, aka SM+CU, if he sees it as a way to cluster-unfuck Brexit . He's less invested in Brexit than Cummings-Johnson. We're obviously not going to rejoin and going down the SM+CU route is a) the most aligned you can be to the EU without actually being a member and b) would spike Labour guns.

Maybe but that would require free movement and not allow trade deals by the UK and see mass defections of Leavers from the Tories back to the Brexit Party

Depends how badly the preparations go. Let's face it, they're not going well for something due to start in just over 5 months time. The hypothetical I'm imagining is one where the choice is between signing up for vassaldom (which undoubtedly will lose the 2024 election for the reason you suggest) and knowingly putting the country through such a mess that the 2029 election is a writeoff as well.

Sometimes the choice is between two terrible options.

If the Tory Party signed up to the SM and CU and full free movement and no trade deals not only would it lose the 2024 election it would likely come third in the 2029 election too and be overtaken by the Brexit Party which would become the main opposition to Starmer's Labour government under a resurgent Farage or Tice.

In a generation, it may be possible the Tory Party comes around to accepting staying in the SM but it would have to have been a Labour government maybe propped up by the LDs that would have taken us back in and a number of Tory defeats on a hard Brexit platform leading to that acceptance

True. It will be toxic for the Conservatives. But consider a *possible* scenario in the autumn...

The CANZUK trade negotiations are trundling along, but aren't finished. The US deal is going nowhere meaningful. Some of the lorry parks are being built, but not all of them. Firms are saying that they won't really be ready for the new paperwork in January.

Yes, pausing the process or signing up for extended vassalage will be politically awful. But will it really be worse than ploughing full speed ahead into the lighthouse?

Hypothetically.

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

LadyG said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

williamglenn said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

contrarian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It really is an indictment of the crass incompetence of the government's messaging that the moderate and completely sensible (albeit a bit tardy) decision to mandate masks in shops has become a political controversy, for no good reason whatsoever. It's an object lesson in how to screw up something simple.

People have become very suspicious of this government. Liberties which were taken have not been returned.

Why should they give another inch?

Maybe because helping reduce the spread of a fatal disease is not something you do simply as a favour to Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.

And as for liberties, it is quite extraordinarily silly to regard the tiny and temporary inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain limited circumstances as something to get het up about. In the overall scheme of government interference in our lives, this is as minor as anything you'll ever get.

Liberties are often not taken in big bites, they are taken incrementally. An inconvenience here, an extra rule there. No bother. They don;t add up to much in themselves, but after a while you turn around and find yourself trapped.

It has to stop somewhere. For me, and I suspect many others, it is here.

Do you think having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement on your liberties?

The government that brought that rule in hadn;t just imposed a house arrest on its citizens four months, and hadn't destroyed its own economy permanently, or moved 11 million workers onto its payroll

So I credited them with a modicum of sense.

In what way is the UK economy permanently damaged?

Don't forget that it was just over ten years from the end of the Second World War - when government debt-to-GDP was 350%, millions were homeless, and much of the Britain's production was destroyed - to "you've never had it so good."

Anyone who thinks our economy has been permanently damaged by four months of economic activity 25% below normal levels is deranged, deluded or retarded.

Which are you?

I think that city centres won't look the same even after we've seen the back of this. A large proportion of offices are going to be smaller and that means fewer cafes, bars and pubs for those workers who do come into the office on a regular basis.

Yep. The world is going to change.

But the world is always changing. People doing more working from home and from villages and from small towns is going to be good for cafes and bars and restaraunts there, even as it is bad for ones in Broadgate Circus.

That's the nature of capitalism and change.

No, I think WFH is making people less social and less inclined to go out and spend money. It's making us a nation of bores who stay in and drink wine and watch Netflix in comfy pajamas. It's just sad.

Don't tar us all with your brush, it will give me opportunities to socialise I didnt have when I commuted....just because you are a sourpuss doesn't mean we all are

Who are you going to socialize with, and where? Everyone will be unemployed, students won’t go to uni, half the pubs will be shuttered.

Your ‘socializing’ will consist of sharing a four pack of Aldi cider, on a bench. At a distance.

There are many activities I want to do that I can't because commuting takes my money and time. Such as taking back up martial arts again. Sadly while commuting I don't get home in time to go do it

Good luck on doing martial arts during a plague spread by heavy breathing near other people

I did say when the lockdown ends, if I am forced back to the office then no socialising for me as there hasnt been for the last 10 years. Complaints from people like you about what lockdown has cost like going to restaurants and bars are frankly laughable.....Most of the country can't actually afford to before lockdown except infrequently in any case.....instead we slog to work at 6am eat at our desks return home around 8pm and hope the money lasts till the end of the month. For a treat we may order a takeaway once maybe twice a month or buy some cheap beer at a supermarket. Locked in due to lack of money is normal life. The only real difference lockdown has made for me is I dont have to get up early and come home late and don't have to deal with obnoxious people I can't stand at the office

Point taken.

I still fear for the wider economy, and all of us, if the leisure/entertainment industry collapses

shrugs it is my pet hate on here. Most that post here aren't struggling, they either are high up in the hierarchy of companies or run companies themselves. Few are struggling at the end of the month or dreading the unexpected bill like a car repair or boiler repair. They see things through their bubble. I try and puncture it occasionally

I am not struggling - but I have plenty of friends and relatives that are in desperate trouble already. Hence, perhaps, my concern

I enjoy a nice middle class office job - one that was safe as houses, until this year. They sacked 25% of my office last month, including some of my best friends. In my sector of work that's actually well below average. My previous employer has shed 50% of jobs already. The end clients our consultancy serves have cancelled contracts and are no longer spending money. Furlough doesn't matter. There is no work for my colleagues to come back to.

There's an element of bravado to some of my colleagues - but most have high outgoings, mortgage payments, school fees etc - and none of them in a million years imagined they would be here. Most live hand to mouth and are leveraged to the max despite being good earners and their redundancy money will run out long before there are jobs again (I am assuming there will be no jobs for at least a year for most).

I'm relatively lucky in that I was just about to buy a nice house in the country before all this kicked off and as such have over three years salary in the bank. And that's before I sell my current property or eat into my portfolio. But I would not be surprised if some of my colleagues facing losing their homes will end up eating a bullet over this. People earning 70-80k a year plus bonus suddenly signing on for £70-80 a week. It will be a rude awakening. And not one that will benefit the Tories.