politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time to ban Americans

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/brooklynmutt/status/1284205912283140096

And this is on Fox News.

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I would argue that the seeds of today's relative poverty of post-industrial regions were sown when those industries either exhausted their natural resources or ceased to be globally competitive - both of which pre-dated Thatcher. You can blame her for lack of appropriate policies to address that issue, but then you'd have to attach the same blame to every government ever since too, including Labour.

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

Malmesbury said:

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

NickPalmer said:

Malmesbury said:

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".

On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.

NickPalmer said:

Malmesbury said:

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".

On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.

Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.

What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff

The issue as I see it is rather different.

For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal

For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.

And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.

I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.

Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.

Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

TimT said:

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.

Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?

I thought that aircraft had efficient airflows from above to below through Hepa filters.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f1163430bba94512a583eb6d6b24aa56/cabin-air-quality.pdf

I have seen no data of any case of transmission on a flight. The same was true for Ebola.

I think two things might be at play in this - the number of air changes per hour through HEPA filters, and the dryness of the air.

I thought I had read of a flight out of Dubai to the Far East that resulted in 8 Covid cases?

Dubai to Australia. Six cases.
The Aussies are very good at highlighting flights where people have later tested positive.
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/flights.aspx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1284456774049894400?s=09

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.

It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.

But why is there month delay in reporting? Get them in within the week if they are to be included in the Covid stats. Government is having to take action based on getting confidence back. It has had to take an unprecedented number of 51:49 decisions. Having people think we've still got triple figure daily deaths will hammer that confidence.

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect

My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years

On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?

Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect

My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years

On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?

Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......

stodge said:

NickPalmer said:

I was discussing with colleagues from work (including the head of HR) what the rules were now for acceptable behaviour at work whenyou're working from home. For example, smoking at work is now OK - you're in your own home, who cares? Having a glass of wine - maybe, who's going to know anyway? The basic rule is "don't do anything that will distract the people you're working with".

On the other hand, taking the day off because you've got a bad cold now feels odd. Sure, you shouldn't go out and infect people, but does a sniffle mean you can't sit at your computer? Probably not. Sickness rates, consequently, are way down.

As others have commented, the "liquid lunch" has gone out of favour in most organisations in the past two or three decades

stodge said:

fox327 said:

It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.

Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.

I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.

Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.

"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.

In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.

As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.

I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.

eek said:

But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree with 3.

The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree with 3.

The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”

Pagan2 said:

MattW said:

stodge said:

fox327 said:

It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.

Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.

I'm not sure about the first paragraph - a little bit of evidence rather than a sweeping generalisation would help.

Did Councils cut some services back with the arrival of Covid? Yes, not only because the public-facing services couldn't operate but staff were redeployed on Covid-related work such as shielding and the provision of temporary facilities such as mortuaries.

"Key" workers have always been able to work in offices - that's why Council offices stayed open throughout, to provide space for those dealing with vulnerable adults and children as well as providing accommodation for multi-agency response teams.

In Newham, the collection of waste, the cleaning of roads and pavements continued without a break - the fly-tipping squad kept going to ensure rubbish wasn't allowed to fester on streets.

As to the staff "working from home", they will be primarily though not exclusively back office and admin staff. They don't need to be at a particular place to work - all they need is the technology to do what they need to do. Non location dependent workers shouldn't impact on service levels - I don't know why you think they would.

I'd also point out train operators ran most of their normal services through the pandemic - that meant dozens of empty trains going up and down the lines.

I think the first is rather easy to demonstrate - phone up your bank or your insurance company. 2 hours later ...

And I have seen scores of websites with just such an announcement.

That is more a product of those firms not being prepared, a good voip call centre system should easily handle staff working from home. I would hazard there was an old fashioned pbx system reliant on internal network. Easy to fix

pm215 said:

eek said:

But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.

I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.

Malmesbury said:

pm215 said:

eek said:

But they would have been way down for any firm with a sane wfh policy anyway. Not feeling 100% just work from home so that you don't infect anyone else.

I think that regardless of the official corporate wfh line, a significant slice of the population feels somehow morally obliged to "soldier through it" and will turn up to the office even if they're feeling a bit ill or have a cold and the logical thing to do would be to stay home and not pass it on to all your coworkers.

I have had to tell people to "F^&k off home" on a number of occasions. As have a number of managers of my aquaintance. Even with regular flu, it is less good for everyone -including the company bottom line - to not infect everyone.

Company provided flu jabs pay for themselves - provably..

Malmesbury said:

England case data

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree with 3.

The decline of heavy industry was inevitable due to comparative advantage. Thatcher just realised that you couldn’t stave it off permanently through subsidy. So she recognised the decline rather than “sowed the seeds”

A major problem was the endless warfare between the stupid management and the stupid unions. Which always reminded me of the fight-on-an-sinking-ship bit in action movies.

The rigid "trade" and piecework systems meant extremely ossified working practises. The union leadership believed in the Lump Of Work fallacy - all productivity increases meant less jobs, they thought. The management complacently thought that something would turn up - maybe more government support....

A while back, I went for a look round an industrial museum. Talking to the curators - ex-engineers all - I was astonished at the miserable, dangerous, ancient equipment they'd been using in Sheffield steel industry in the 80s. I asked - this was the standard stuff in usage, not special relics for the museum.

Although you seem surprised by the usage of ancient equipment, I'm not.

It's a rare company in the UK that actually invests in productivity, most companies continue using what they've got until the firm inevitably dies due to productivity increases elsewhere rendering the company unprofitable.

Just look at the last 10 years - few firms seem to have been focussed on productivity, most just added cheap workers to meet demand..

I wasn't surprised so much as... surprised by the extent of it. Finding a manual 1930 lathe was in use in 1986 was interesting. Finding that they'd been trying to do aerospace work on it was... a moment.

Mexicanpete said:

Charles said:

Mexicanpete said:

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect

My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years

On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?

Not if Nipoleon shuts the border......

Don't call her Nipoleon! She will always be wee Jimmy Krankie!

Saint Nicola?

I can't say I share your exalted opinion of the lady. But hey, whatever floats your boat!

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

MikeL said:

One Gov.uk website says no daily death figures being issued for yesterday due to problem with how deaths recorded.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases-and-deaths

Another Gov.uk website does give the number of deaths for yesterday - 40, very low for a weekday. Same day last week was 148.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.240353223.557347567.1594998097-334965128.1579540533

High number of positive tests yesterday - 827.

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

Could you include the overall total for each day please.

It would show the level of concentration of each area compared to England as a whole.

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.

The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.

What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.

Malmesbury said:

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.

The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.

What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.

Because this is Pillar 1 + Pillar 2 data, what you are seeing is the *result* of track, trace & test.

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

geoffw said:

Every country has a comparative advantage in something.

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.

And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.

And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.

Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.

Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.

The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.

What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015

By 2019 Boris had totally reversed that, doing better with skilled working class voters than middle class voters. Last year the Tories got 47% with C2s but only 45% with ABs and C1s and even got 41% with DEs
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

I don't dispute your point about Corbyn, however getting rid of the barsteward can only be a good thing.

As to the banks. I believe Brown and Darling had seen what had happened with the run on Northern Rock in 2007 and didn't fancy the mega version of that a year later. One could argue it the Bush administration had intervened with Lehmann Brothers, and underwritten some of the sub prime mortgage debt the crisis would not have been quite so bad. I wouldn't argue if you said the bail out of ungrateful bankers allowed them back at the trough with immediacy and impunity without penalty, quite how that could have worked I couldn't say.

What of the future? I am not sure how Starmer or his successors can beat Johnson by returning the blue collar classes to the Labour fold. I was confident up until last week that any economic crash would be to Labour's benefit, but it might work for Johnson instead if he can scapegoat groups that Labour are seen as soft on. Mainly "foreigners" of any creed, colour and religion.

There was perhaps no good, certainly no perfect, option available for the government in 2008.

But the imagery remains of Labour bailing out the 'London bankers' while letting the local factories and steelworks close.

And the imagery passes into the common mindset until something replaces it.

Ed Miliband couldn't replace that image - he was too obviously London establishment. Corbyn for a brief period came close though by representing 'old Labour'. Starmer we will have to see.

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.

And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.

Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.

Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?

Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.

There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation

Foxy said:

another_richard said:

Malmesbury said:

Apologies for earlier - wrong file

NHS England case data

That's either a worrying development in Blackburn or they've had a big increase in testing. Or both.

The same could apply to Birmingham, Rochdale and Northampton.

What should be concerning about Leicester, Bradford and Kirklees is the continuous nature.

Leicester is saturated by pop up test centres, and going door to door. Even so the numbers are dropping, indeed the peak was before the extended lockdown.

@Malmesbury does a good chart, but the figures do need normalising for population. Birmingham is obviously quite a lot bigger than Oadby and Wigston for example.

https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1284514237663125511?s=19

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

That is not actually correct, in 2015 for example Cameron did far better with middle class voters than working class voters, the Tories getting 45% with upper middle class ABs and 41% with lower middle class C1s but only 32% with skilled working class C2s and just 27% with unskilled and unemployed DEs.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015

By 2019 Boris had totally reversed that, doing better with skilled working class voters than middle class voters. Last year the Tories got 47% with C2s but only 45% with ABs and C1s and even got 41% with DEs
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

The Conservatives didn't have to get a majority of working class votes but rather to get enough of them.

Its noticeable that in 2015 that the Conservatives gained the likes of Morley, Telford and Southampton Itchen from Labour while Chester, Hove and Ealing went the other way.

MattW said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Didn't the Govt end up making a profit from the whole thing?

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Didn't the Govt end up making a profit from the whole thing?

No:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-budget-banks/british-taxpayers-face-27-billion-pound-loss-from-bank-bailout-idUKKBN13I1FJ

This explains the figure in more detail:
https://fullfact.org/economy/1-trillion-not-spent-bailing-out-banks/

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.

And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.

Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.

Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?

Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.

There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation

Its all blah, blah, blah.

People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.

The point is they didn’t.

Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?

Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?

Objectively speaking you are wrong.

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha

Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.

Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.

I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -

Brexit is about identity not economics.

But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.

The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.

I disagree on the third.

It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.

That was the great betrayal.

Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.

Working class voters have voted for Conservative Governments for I think 69 of the last 100 years. It is not a new phenomenon.

However, I do think Johnson's Benny Hill tribute act captures the hearts of a great many people who see him as a national treasure rather than a Conservative Politician.

Conservative governments have always been elected on working class votes but there are reasons why that vote switch happens.

And what Labour supporters seem to be in denial about was how the working class were betrayed when the London bankers were bailed out by a Labour government.

Instead we get 'it was all the fault of Corbyn' or convoluted and contradictory theories blaming Fatcha.

You seem to have this obsession with “the bankers” being bailed out

The owners of the banks were basically wiped out. There have been criminal prosecutions of a few and drumming out of others. The innocent have been forced to pay for the sins of the guilty through the bank levy.

But if the actual institutions themselves had been shut down then the country would have fallen apart.

The details aren't important to the general perception of what happened.

By 'bankers' people don't think of shareholders but the 'red braces in front of computer screen' types.

And in particular the Goodwins and Applegarths who walked off with fortunes while the local branches shut with the local workers losing their jobs.

Goodwin has been drummed out. He’s a nonentity, PNG. Applegarth I haven’t tracked.

And most of the traders you refer to have lost their jobs.

Goodwin and Applegarth might be non-entities but they walked away with millions.

Do you realise how offensive that looked to the many people ? Especially those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and received statutory redundancy only ?

Godwin’s shares were wiped out, as we Applegarth. Their options and incentive plans were cancelled.

There were some complaints about Goodwin’s pension but at the time there was no legal way to remove prior compensation and I’m not a fan of illegal expropriation

Its all blah, blah, blah.

People see that Goodwin and Applegarth walked away with millions and that's all there is to it.

The point is they didn’t.

Applegarth made about £5m after tax in his career at Northern Rock. A decent amount of money but no more than a partner in an accountancy or law firm would have made. Do you think that should have been taken away from him retrospectively?

Goodwin struck a deal to give up half his pension. He had a good legal case to give up none of it but chose to in return for an end to the legal cases. Should RBS have rejected that settlement deal?

Objectively speaking you are wrong.