WH2020: The courts put of a halt on US Postal Service changes that could have impacted on the outcom
Options
Comments
-
According to the article someone posted here several threads back on how many people think that mail-in voting is easy but actually many votes get rejected because voters do not follow the rules, it could be inspired genius from Trump - get a lot more Democrat voters electing to vote by mail than on the day (look at the NC stats - many of the Democrat registered voters asking for mail in ballots voted early or on the day in 2016) meaning their is a greater chance their votes don't count.SeaShantyIrish2 said:One thing that's puzzling about Trumpsky's attack on postal voting and the United States Postal Service is that it
1) the first was NEVER likely to work (unless you could get lots of judges all drunk & keep them that way); and
2) the folks most sensitive to Trumpsky screwing up USPS are
a) seniors; and
b) rural residents
Which is why RNC and most sane (or less insane) GOPers are a best dubious.0 -
I have a feeling some of these scientists may be great with theories and modelling but haven't a clue about how some of the rest of the country actually works.solarflare said:A 2 week lockdown seems neither here nor there. How much time would it actually buy you? With the whole winter still in front of you?
A 2 week lockdown would likely be extended but even still, at just 2 weeks the lockdown would be devastating to much of the economy. Some workplaces may be able to just shut down for 2 weeks then pick up as normal but for some other places, like eg restaurants and pubs etc a 2 week shutdown would see not just a loss of trade but seeing their stock having to be thrown out and then replaced with fresh stock a fortnight later.
That would be devastating and financially ruinous, many companies already struggling after the prior lockdown won't be coming back back after 2 weeks.
That's not to say it may not be necessary, but its not a trivial case of just pressing a pause button for 2 weeks, it would be very destructive.2 -
As it has been since the early days, it's a matter of balancing risk. Given that the bloody disease refuses to go away, you have to decide what's most important to you.Jonathan said:
Covid is not an old people issue. I’ve friends who got the bug. They are still alive, but still unwell 6 months on.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.
If it's not very prevalent in your locality then you may just wish to get on with life as normally as restrictions allow.
If it's rife and you're an obese septuagenarian with type 1 diabetes then it probably makes a lot of sense to sit at home as much as possible and wait to be rescued by a vaccine. If you're a fit 25-year-old who can't work from home (and would rather not fritter away the rest of your youth watching Netflix and/or wanking away disconsolately in your shitty little rented flat every night) then you might be a bit more keen on getting out there. Yes, Covid has the potential to do you serious harm, but it almost certainly won't.
Ultimately we all have to learn how best to live with this thing, because we can't all sit at home the whole time and wait for it to go away. It won't go away, and the country will collapse in the meantime.4 -
That may be true.Jonathan said:
Covid is not an old people issue. I’ve friends who got the bug. They are still alive, but still unwell 6 months on.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.
But in terms of how people under 40 (and quite a few over 40) are behaving, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and people simply won't abide by the rules of lockdown 2.
Frankly I'd rather take my chances than spend another three months alone in my flat. I'm alive, but still suffering the effects of the isolation and social deprivation months later.1 -
This time around Attlee would be nuts to get involved with a Government of National Catastrophe.Jonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
1 -
On average a covid fatality loses 10 years of life.Jonathan said:
Covid is not an old people issue. I’ve friends who got the bug. They are still alive, but still unwell 6 months on.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1300370141973303297?s=190 -
I really don't know for sure.Mortimer said:
Conversely, down here in Dorset things are back to something akin to normal. And our numbers are low.dixiedean said:
From the evidence of my eyes in downtown Newcastle on the eve of lockdown.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Yes.
Dead.
At 8 pm.
Worse at 9:30.
What is happening up north to cause so much case growth? How about in London; hows it looking there?
One thing people do do a heck of a lot more up here is go in each other's houses, especially neighbours, as @Black_Rook points out. Often they'll go round the entire street for a chat.
It is a feature of life in the NE and NW, which I never saw down South to anything like the same extent.1 -
You can't really draw judgements from Redfield and Wilton polls in absolute terms. They're a new entrant to the field so unlike just about every other current polling company had no means to judge the success or otherwise of their methodology at GE 2019. So what such new entrants do is tweak their initial methodology so that it produces results similar results to other firms, and then start disclosing their polls in public only when they're satisfied that they've been producing results that are similar to those of other companies. If the results start to diverge down the line they'll tweak that methodology again. Basically they're using the herd effect to boost their credibility.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
What is interesting though is the trend. That 2% Tory lead follows five of their previous polls in which the lead was in the range 5% to 7% every time. So there's a chance that it could signal a futher shift in public opinion away from the Tories in mid September.
Did anyone here take that bet recommended here at I think the start of the year that Labour would lead in a national poll before it ends?0 -
They may be delusional, but they are loyal BrexiteersFoxy said:
This week I was told to eliminate our waiting list backlog by January. Totally delusional from the DoH.Beibheirli_C said:
Considering that there are a large number of reports that hospitals are largely empty (plus the unused nightingales) - why are we emptying hospitals? Surely there is enough of the NHS sitting on its backside protecting itself to take up the slack.Black_Rook said:
Quickly, let's shove all the Covid-riddled elderly into the care homes and stop treating cancer patients! Again!CorrectHorseBattery said:
Remind me why we built the Nightingales again?
Totally, irredeemably fucking useless.
If the NHS does not step forward in a pandemic then what the hell is it for?
The two may be related
0 -
I don’t think I know anyone who wouldn’t break ‘the rule of six’kyf_100 said:
That may be true.Jonathan said:
Covid is not an old people issue. I’ve friends who got the bug. They are still alive, but still unwell 6 months on.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.
But in terms of how people under 40 (and quite a few over 40) are behaving, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and people simply won't abide by the rules of lockdown 2.
Frankly I'd rather take my chances than spend another three months alone in my flat. I'm alive, but still suffering the effects of the isolation and social deprivation months later.0 -
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>0 -
Is that still going? I gave up watching it about 10 years ago.Black_Rook said:
Oh fucking hell, haven't we all suffered enough already?HYUFD said:Question Time on BBC1 now
0 -
You're right - that basically doesn't happen in the South... We are I think unusual in knowing our neighbours either side by name.dixiedean said:
I really don't know for sure.Mortimer said:
Conversely, down here in Dorset things are back to something akin to normal. And our numbers are low.dixiedean said:
From the evidence of my eyes in downtown Newcastle on the eve of lockdown.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Yes.
Dead.
At 8 pm.
Worse at 9:30.
What is happening up north to cause so much case growth? How about in London; hows it looking there?
One thing people do do a heck of a lot more up here is go in each other's houses, especially neighbours, as @Black_Rook points out. Often they'll go round the entire street for a chat.
It is a feature of life in the NE and NW, which I never saw down South to anything like the same extent.0 -
-
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>0 -
Boris is no Churchill. Good grief.HYUFD said:
They ditched Theresa Chamberlain in 2019 when they replaced her with Boris Churchill, whether Starmer is Attlee remains to be seenJonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
Sadly for us whilst Boris thinks he Churchill, he turned out to be chamberlain.1 -
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>0 -
A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.4 -
Obvious solution for Sean-F and/or Lady-G would be to secure appointment as Honorary Consul for San Marino or Isle of Man. OR Deputy Foreign Minister for Rockall?CarlottaVance said:
Just one detail:FrancisUrquhart said:Holidays to Thailand and Singapore are back on as countries are added to UK's 'green list
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8744515/Thailand-Singapore-safe-travel-list-Slovenia-Guadalupe-visitors-face-quarantine.html
Entry to Singapore
Short term visitors from anywhere in the world are not able to enter Singapore.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/singapore/entry-requirements
Entry and transit
At present you are only permitted to enter Thailand if they meet one of the following criteria:
If you are on a diplomatic or consular mission......
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand/entry-requirements
Other than that....Yay!0 -
Can only speak for my own locality, but the restaurants I've been to have been very hot on things like spacing, screens, disposable menus and hand sanitiser. Work colleague who went in local pub related to me that members of his party were told off for drinking whilst standing up (even though in the vicinity of their own table) and made to sit down.Foxy said:
Same here. It was crazy.dixiedean said:
100s were rammed into restaurants round here.FrancisUrquhart said:
I think having 100s of people rammed in pubs was worse.dixiedean said:
Eat out to Help Out, wildly popular at the time and hailed as a roaring success, is proving less inspired in hindsight.FrancisUrquhart said:
As i have said loads of time, the go and have a foreign summer holiday message...madness.stodge said:
The problem is you bump up against a populist Government trying be popular all the time.FrancisUrquhart said:Tegnell says not concerned about a second wave in Sweden. Sticking to the regime, rather than lockdown, open up, rinse and repeat.
And that is all they got from him, as was on a train with dodgy wifi.
Boris wants to be an unremittingly cheerful, positive Prime Minister of whom people would say "it was wonderful to be alive when Boris Johnson ran Britain" - they may not think that now.
As such, being relentlessly positive, promising a return to the good times, being the spokesman for the return to normality, "Mr Good News" is what he wants and does well (it's not frankly very difficult). He spent the early summer promising hope, a return to shops, a return to pubs, a return to restaurants, a return to the office, a return to schools, a return to normality, a return to the life we all had back in the good times when we gave him a 80-seat majority.
Those days...
The problem was too many people believed or wanted to believe the virus was gone and we could go back to the life we had without risk. We could restore the night time economy, we could have fun again, we could forget the virus and have back the life we once had.
It wasn't so simple but Boris couldn't be honest - instead, he did what he always does and tells the audience in front of him exactly what he thinks they want to hear.
Like picking up the ball on halfway slalomming past 4 and curling it into your own net.
Many pubs at least made an effort to distance.
Some eateries made the opposite decision to pack them in.
Of course, this is also a leafy rural town which got off lightly from the Spring Covid tsunami, so you've never been at much risk here anyway. It's Sod's Law that the violations of protocol typically seem to be concentrated in those areas that can least afford for them to happen.0 -
I had to laugh when Harding was explaining why she decided to prolong the time it takes to return test results.Black_Rook said:
As it has been since the early days, it's a matter of balancing risk. Given that the bloody disease refuses to go away, you have to decide what's most important to you.Jonathan said:
Covid is not an old people issue. I’ve friends who got the bug. They are still alive, but still unwell 6 months on.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.
If it's not very prevalent in your locality then you may just wish to get on with life as normally as restrictions allow.
If it's rife and you're an obese septuagenarian with type 1 diabetes then it probably makes a lot of sense to sit at home as much as possible and wait to be rescued by a vaccine. If you're a fit 25-year-old who can't work from home (and would rather not fritter away the rest of your youth watching Netflix and/or wanking away disconsolately in your shitty little rented flat every night) then you might be a bit more keen on getting out there. Yes, Covid has the potential to do you serious harm, but it almost certainly won't.
Ultimately we all have to learn how best to live with this thing, because we can't all sit at home the whole time and wait for it to go away. It won't go away, and the country will collapse in the meantime.
"People terrified waiting for their test results."
Why would you be terrified if you have sent off a test? Presumably you are in ok health or you would be at A&E.
You might be economically terrified, that said, and with good reason.0 -
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.0 -
Chamberlain to Lord North surely?Jonathan said:
Boris is no Churchill. Good grief.HYUFD said:
They ditched Theresa Chamberlain in 2019 when they replaced her with Boris Churchill, whether Starmer is Attlee remains to be seenJonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
Sadly for us whilst Boris thinks he Churchill, he turned out to be chamberlain. 1 -
For most Brexiteers Boris is Churchill and delivering what they voted for not appeasing the EU like May, Remainers obviously take a different viewJonathan said:
Boris is no Churchill. Good grief.HYUFD said:
They ditched Theresa Chamberlain in 2019 when they replaced her with Boris Churchill, whether Starmer is Attlee remains to be seenJonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
Sadly for us whilst Boris thinks he Churchill, he turned out to be chamberlain.0 -
All fair points. And from a purely covid perspective I don't see how it would do much other than press pause on the spread of the virus anyway, maybe roll it back a little, but clearly insufficient time to squash it back down - it's only going to be a handful more weeks before you're back in the same position anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
I have a feeling some of these scientists may be great with theories and modelling but haven't a clue about how some of the rest of the country actually works.solarflare said:A 2 week lockdown seems neither here nor there. How much time would it actually buy you? With the whole winter still in front of you?
A 2 week lockdown would likely be extended but even still, at just 2 weeks the lockdown would be devastating to much of the economy. Some workplaces may be able to just shut down for 2 weeks then pick up as normal but for some other places, like eg restaurants and pubs etc a 2 week shutdown would see not just a loss of trade but seeing their stock having to be thrown out and then replaced with fresh stock a fortnight later.
That would be devastating and financially ruinous, many companies already struggling after the prior lockdown won't be coming back back after 2 weeks.
That's not to say it may not be necessary, but its not a trivial case of just pressing a pause button for 2 weeks, it would be very destructive.
An extremely expensive way of not buying very much time, as far as I can tell.2 -
No, Chamberlain was actually a very good CoE.Jonathan said:
Boris is no Churchill. Good grief.HYUFD said:
They ditched Theresa Chamberlain in 2019 when they replaced her with Boris Churchill, whether Starmer is Attlee remains to be seenJonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
Sadly for us whilst Boris thinks he Churchill, he turned out to be chamberlain.
BoZo was a reasonably good panel show host, but that was a pretty low peak to his career.4 -
If we get close to deaths in hospital corridors we will lock down.Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.
The billion dollar question is whether deaths will continue to be relatively low.0 -
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
Read the rest of the sentence. It isn't deadly enough ... for people to support total shutdown. If it had a 10% mortality rate rather than 0.3% or whatever, and if it affected children as much as the old, then I imagine things would be different.Mexicanpete said:
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.1 -
Yep. We know the names and much of the life story of all of the 12 houses on our street. And we are known for keeping to ourselves.Mortimer said:
You're right - that basically doesn't happen in the South... We are I think unusual in knowing our neighbours either side by name.dixiedean said:
I really don't know for sure.Mortimer said:
Conversely, down here in Dorset things are back to something akin to normal. And our numbers are low.dixiedean said:
From the evidence of my eyes in downtown Newcastle on the eve of lockdown.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Yes.
Dead.
At 8 pm.
Worse at 9:30.
What is happening up north to cause so much case growth? How about in London; hows it looking there?
One thing people do do a heck of a lot more up here is go in each other's houses, especially neighbours, as @Black_Rook points out. Often they'll go round the entire street for a chat.
It is a feature of life in the NE and NW, which I never saw down South to anything like the same extent.
Coronation Street couldn't have really worked down South.0 -
Lord North? Lord Buckethead more like!Beibheirli_C said:
Chamberlain to Lord North surely?Jonathan said:
Boris is no Churchill. Good grief.HYUFD said:
They ditched Theresa Chamberlain in 2019 when they replaced her with Boris Churchill, whether Starmer is Attlee remains to be seenJonathan said:At what point do the Tories ditch Chamberlain get Churchill and bring Attlee into a GONU.
Sadly for us whilst Boris thinks he Churchill, he turned out to be chamberlain.1 -
As the Facebook meme had it: imagine a disease so deadly you need to have a test to see if you've got it.Fishing said:
Read the rest of the sentence. It isn't deadly enough ... for people to support total shutdown. If it had a 10% mortality rate rather than 0.3% or whatever, and if it affected children as much as the old, then I imagine things would be different.Mexicanpete said:
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.2 -
It would be the weakest if the socialists behaved as though they had an overall majority, yes indeed - like the last days of the Callagham government.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
But if they all work together, with due humility, like the time of the Lib-Lab pact, or the recent Coalition government, it could be one of the best.0 -
Black_Rook said:
Quickly, let's shove all the Covid-riddled elderly into the care homes and stop treating cancer patients! Again!CorrectHorseBattery said:
Remind me why we built the Nightingales again?
Totally, irredeemably fucking useless.
Edward Argar, health minister, was on TalkRadio this morning, I dug out the tape online after @Contrarion mentioned that the presenter Julia Hartley had to tell Argar his own covid stats. Argar was entirely clueless, said Contrarion.Black_Rook said:
Lockdown 2: Mass UnemploymentFrancisUrquhart said:
Lockdown, lockdown harder...a proper christmas film.TheScreamingEagles said:World beating!
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306699242241749001
Lockdown 3: Total Economic Collapse
Lockdown 4: Trap and Eat your Neighbour's Cat to Survive
Lockdown 5: Trap and Eat your Neighbour to Survive
Lockdown 6: Beyond Thunderdome
In fact, the interview was even worse than Contrarion cast it. Not only did Argar lack any idea how many healthy under 60s have died from Covid (307), he was also unaware that PHE even sequestered groups by age and health. He challenged JHB on that, only for her to then tell him that indeed PHE did segment the data like this and indeed that a total of 307 healthy under 60s have died from Covid in England.
Argar - remember - is health minister.
0 -
Ageist!Fishing said:
Read the rest of the sentence. It isn't deadly enough ... for people to support total shutdown. If it had a 10% mortality rate rather than 0.3% or whatever, and if it affected children as much as the old, then I imagine things would be different.Mexicanpete said:
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.0 -
Eh? Like HIV?TOPPING said:
As the Facebook meme had it: imagine a disease so deadly you need to have a test to see if you've got it.Fishing said:
Read the rest of the sentence. It isn't deadly enough ... for people to support total shutdown. If it had a 10% mortality rate rather than 0.3% or whatever, and if it affected children as much as the old, then I imagine things would be different.Mexicanpete said:
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.0 -
Indeed.dixiedean said:
Yep. We know the names and much of the life story of all of the 12 houses on our street. And we are known for keeping to ourselves.Mortimer said:
You're right - that basically doesn't happen in the South... We are I think unusual in knowing our neighbours either side by name.dixiedean said:
I really don't know for sure.Mortimer said:
Conversely, down here in Dorset things are back to something akin to normal. And our numbers are low.dixiedean said:
From the evidence of my eyes in downtown Newcastle on the eve of lockdown.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Yes.
Dead.
At 8 pm.
Worse at 9:30.
What is happening up north to cause so much case growth? How about in London; hows it looking there?
One thing people do do a heck of a lot more up here is go in each other's houses, especially neighbours, as @Black_Rook points out. Often they'll go round the entire street for a chat.
It is a feature of life in the NE and NW, which I never saw down South to anything like the same extent.
Coronation Street couldn't have really worked down South.
I've always wondered if Two Doors Down is in any way representative in the same way. Any Scots care to comment?0 -
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.0 -
No. Not like HIV. At all.Jonathan said:
Eh? Like HIV?TOPPING said:
As the Facebook meme had it: imagine a disease so deadly you need to have a test to see if you've got it.Fishing said:
Read the rest of the sentence. It isn't deadly enough ... for people to support total shutdown. If it had a 10% mortality rate rather than 0.3% or whatever, and if it affected children as much as the old, then I imagine things would be different.Mexicanpete said:
It simply isn't deadly enough????Fishing said:A new lockdown in October might delay another wave by a couple of weeks right into the start of the flu season.
Really, we need to admit that all we can do until a vaccine comes along if it ever does is learn to live with the virus. It simply isn't deadly enough and it's too selective in whom it targets for people to support the total shutdown which could maybe control it for a while.
And there's not much evidence that a half-baked shutdown does much more than voluntary social distancing.1 -
So the '2 week lockdown being proposed' tweet of yesterday, which was then denied, was right?0
-
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
The “workable solution” is to stop testing, apart from people who might come into contact with a vulnerable person...
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1306720401356095492?s=210 -
This morning listening to Argar it was frightening in that everything he said wouldn't happen we now know will happen and vice versa.Richard_Nabavi said:So the '2 week lockdown being proposed' tweet of yesterday, which was then denied, was right?
What a dismal state for a government to be in that people automatically disbelieve everything they say.1 -
The atmosphere is laced with a deadly poisonous gas, of course it's a Russian planet.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
What REALLY worries me, is story about Russians claiming Venus.Benpointer said:
I doubt it - that's the Star front page.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Isn't the Sun afraid the Teletubies might sue for defamation?rottenborough said:
Has HM's Govt take steps to meet this new threat? OR are gonna rely on Trumpsky's Space Farce??
1 -
Ed Argar was on the shortlist for the Wealden constituency in 2014. He was unimpressive then, although better than Helen Whatley. Both have gone on to get safe seats elsewhere, and are now unimpressive ministers under this government.Anabobazina said:Black_Rook said:
Quickly, let's shove all the Covid-riddled elderly into the care homes and stop treating cancer patients! Again!CorrectHorseBattery said:
Remind me why we built the Nightingales again?
Totally, irredeemably fucking useless.
Edward Argar, health minister, was on TalkRadio this morning, I dug out the tape online after @Contrarion mentioned that the presenter Julia Hartley had to tell Argar his own covid stats. Argar was entirely clueless, said Contrarion.Black_Rook said:
Lockdown 2: Mass UnemploymentFrancisUrquhart said:
Lockdown, lockdown harder...a proper christmas film.TheScreamingEagles said:World beating!
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306699242241749001
Lockdown 3: Total Economic Collapse
Lockdown 4: Trap and Eat your Neighbour's Cat to Survive
Lockdown 5: Trap and Eat your Neighbour to Survive
Lockdown 6: Beyond Thunderdome
In fact, the interview was even worse than Contrarion cast it. Not only did Argar lack any idea how many healthy under 60s have died from Covid (307), he was also unaware that PHE even sequestered groups by age and health. He challenged JHB on that, only for her to then tell him that indeed PHE did segment the data like this and indeed that a total of 307 healthy under 60s have died from Covid in England.
Argar - remember - is health minister.2 -
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.1 -
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
I never heard of him.Anabobazina said:Black_Rook said:
Quickly, let's shove all the Covid-riddled elderly into the care homes and stop treating cancer patients! Again!CorrectHorseBattery said:
Remind me why we built the Nightingales again?
Totally, irredeemably fucking useless.
Edward Argar, health minister, was on TalkRadio this morning, I dug out the tape online after @Contrarion mentioned that the presenter Julia Hartley had to tell Argar his own covid stats. Argar was entirely clueless, said Contrarion.Black_Rook said:
Lockdown 2: Mass UnemploymentFrancisUrquhart said:
Lockdown, lockdown harder...a proper christmas film.TheScreamingEagles said:World beating!
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306699242241749001
Lockdown 3: Total Economic Collapse
Lockdown 4: Trap and Eat your Neighbour's Cat to Survive
Lockdown 5: Trap and Eat your Neighbour to Survive
Lockdown 6: Beyond Thunderdome
In fact, the interview was even worse than Contrarion cast it. Not only did Argar lack any idea how many healthy under 60s have died from Covid (307), he was also unaware that PHE even sequestered groups by age and health. He challenged JHB on that, only for her to then tell him that indeed PHE did segment the data like this and indeed that a total of 307 healthy under 60s have died from Covid in England.
Argar - remember - is health minister.
[Edit: I just Googled him. Entered Parliament in 2015 so bags of experience at the top of politics. The best thing about him is his middle name is Comport. Com Port? What? Like RS232C or RS485? Or possibly USB!
He needs to connect to the Mothership more frequently to update his data]2 -
When you say "fed up of Boris", it makes me feel that you are not properly English, young HY.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced1 -
Well, at least you know where you are. You listen carefully to what they say, and on the rare occasions where it's unambiguous, you know that the opposite is correct.TOPPING said:
This morning listening to Argar it was frightening in that everything he said wouldn't happen we now know will happen and vice versa.Richard_Nabavi said:So the '2 week lockdown being proposed' tweet of yesterday, which was then denied, was right?
What a dismal state for a government to be in that people automatically disbelieve everything they say.1 -
Didn't he write 'Land of Hope and Glory'?Beibheirli_C said:
I never heard of him.Anabobazina said:Black_Rook said:
Quickly, let's shove all the Covid-riddled elderly into the care homes and stop treating cancer patients! Again!CorrectHorseBattery said:
Remind me why we built the Nightingales again?
Totally, irredeemably fucking useless.
Edward Argar, health minister, was on TalkRadio this morning, I dug out the tape online after @Contrarion mentioned that the presenter Julia Hartley had to tell Argar his own covid stats. Argar was entirely clueless, said Contrarion.Black_Rook said:
Lockdown 2: Mass UnemploymentFrancisUrquhart said:
Lockdown, lockdown harder...a proper christmas film.TheScreamingEagles said:World beating!
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306699242241749001
Lockdown 3: Total Economic Collapse
Lockdown 4: Trap and Eat your Neighbour's Cat to Survive
Lockdown 5: Trap and Eat your Neighbour to Survive
Lockdown 6: Beyond Thunderdome
In fact, the interview was even worse than Contrarion cast it. Not only did Argar lack any idea how many healthy under 60s have died from Covid (307), he was also unaware that PHE even sequestered groups by age and health. He challenged JHB on that, only for her to then tell him that indeed PHE did segment the data like this and indeed that a total of 307 healthy under 60s have died from Covid in England.
Argar - remember - is health minister.3 -
Risk segmentation.williamglenn said:The “workable solution” is to stop testing, apart from people who might come into contact with a vulnerable person...
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1306720401356095492?s=21
I’ve been banging on about this on here for months now.3 -
-
If he became PM on those numbers I wonder if he'd be able to call a Scottish referendum? The Tories would presumably vote against, so it would all depend on the LDs and NIs. It might only take a couple of Labour rebels to defeat the bill.HYUFD said:
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.1 -
For the excellent reason that it is about the only thing that might stand a chance of working.Anabobazina said:
Risk segmentation.williamglenn said:The “workable solution” is to stop testing, apart from people who might come into contact with a vulnerable person...
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1306720401356095492?s=21
I’ve been banging on about this on here for months now.
Going through repeated cycles of total lockdown until the economy is cut to ribbons won't work. It will just grind us down until we can't afford to protect the vulnerable, who will then die anyway.
But blaming everything on young people and introducing pettifogging regulations around when pubs can stay open until is all so much easier than asking those at risk from the disease (most of whom also happen to be one wing of the Tory core vote) to stay at home and wait this thing out. So here we are.1 -
It's at least five years before we'll know if Starmer has been any good as PM.Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>0 -
And if the Labour rebels defeated the bill the SNP would bring down Starmer's government then anyway and there would be a snap general election which the Tories would hope to win.Fishing said:
If he became PM on those numbers I wonder if he'd be able to call a Scottish referendum? The Tories would presumably vote against, so it would all depend on the LDs and NIs. It might only take a couple of Labour rebels to defeat the bill.HYUFD said:
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.
Hence it is so important for him that Starmer makes gains in Scotland as well as England in 2024 if he is going to become PM and have a stable government1 -
Goodnight everyone
0 -
A second Sindy one is more likely.Mexicanpete said:
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
He wasn't very good apparantly. Mystic-HYUFD just suggested he was almost immediately brought down by the SNP over SIndyRef2, Boris won the snap GE and equilibrium was restored.Fishing said:
It's at least five years before we'll know if Starmer has been any good as PM.Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
P.S. I wonder if the SNP got SindyRef2 after bringing down Starmer?1 -
It's impossible to believe anything they say because they're making the whole thing up as they go along. Policy is invented then discarded on a whim. I doubt if more than 10% of it is made on any form of evidential basis. All the rest is whatever was going through Cummings' head that morning, or is simply dreamt up on the spot by a minister during a difficult media interview.TOPPING said:
This morning listening to Argar it was frightening in that everything he said wouldn't happen we now know will happen and vice versa.Richard_Nabavi said:So the '2 week lockdown being proposed' tweet of yesterday, which was then denied, was right?
What a dismal state for a government to be in that people automatically disbelieve everything they say.
The automatic reaction to a regulation like the "Rule of Six" is (a) what is the reasoning behind this, or is it simply a product of "Panic, panic, something must be done!" and "Six sounds like a nice round number"; and (b) how many hours or days will it last before it's modified or replaced by something else? It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.0 -
Broadly speaking the stated British strategy is the same as Sweden's - have only just enough restrictions to keep the virus under control. Neither country are encouraging a higher rate of infection to reach herd immunity. Neither country are aiming for zero Covid.rottenborough said:
Tegnell says Swedes are running a marathon. Wants rules that people can live with for a long time potentially.FrancisUrquhart said:
The inconsistencies are just bonkers and definitely not following the science...indoor gym classes fine, outdoor ones with more than 6, computer says no.Pulpstar said:One thing Sweden has done is keep their rules relatively consistent. An England centred post follows
The differing local lockdown rules, exception for grouse shooting, starting getting 1,000 people back to sporting events at the same time as reducing social numbers to six, probable reintroduction of under 12s into the six as a u-turn at some point. The palpable shock that kids pick up bugs when they head back to school and worried parents might want a test.
It's all headless and directionless, and I say that as someone broadly in favour of restrictions...
Struggling once again to see why MPs aren't demanding an urgent debate on the strategy of our response.
The only difference is that the implementation of the strategy in Britain has been bungled so the virus is no longer under control.0 -
HY assures me that will NEVER happen on Johnson's watch!Philip_Thompson said:
A second Sindy one is more likely.Mexicanpete said:
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
It certainly won't, the Tory majority of 80 will ban indyref2 until 2024 certainly however as I posted above if Starmer becomes PM and is reliant on SNP support then it becomes a possibilityMexicanpete said:
HY assures me that will NEVER happen on Johnson's watch!Philip_Thompson said:
A second Sindy one is more likely.Mexicanpete said:
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.1 -
Johnson could look the other way.Mexicanpete said:
HY assures me that will NEVER happen on Johnson's watch!Philip_Thompson said:
A second Sindy one is more likely.Mexicanpete said:
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.1 -
I think that if it's a clearly-defined lockdown people will largely go along with it, especially if it's for a specified period. But we need some clear messaging on what, why and how long.kyf_100 said:
The tradeoff now is what it always has been.Jonathan said:Tonight it’s hard not to feel on the brink of calamity. Hopefully I am wrong.
Will a second lockdown pull down the economic house of cards?
Saving the lives of the old and the infirm, vs saving the economy.
The government has chosen the former, at enormous cost, because the latter is too unpalatable to contemplate.
The trouble is the young and the healthy have chosen to carry on with life. And short of welding them into their homes, a second lockdown is likely to be as effective as a Barnard Castle eye test.1 -
HY assures us of all kinds of crap.Mexicanpete said:
HY assures me that will NEVER happen on Johnson's watch!Philip_Thompson said:
A second Sindy one is more likely.Mexicanpete said:
Another EU Referendum? Bring it on!Philip_Thompson said:
Like Cameron's second term.Mexicanpete said:
I was replying to this "But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know"Philip_Thompson said:
By winning the next election?Mexicanpete said:
Five years? How is Boris going to drag it out for five years- do you know something we don't?Fishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
So if your statement is correct, Johnson's second term will be very short.0 -
The virus spread more quickly in February/March because people hadn't started working from home, etc. There was also much less testing. The two combined meant that you could go very quickly from a situation of apparent calm, to dead in hospital corridors.Jonathan said:
Isn’t that entirely contingent on deaths remaining low. If we - god forbid - get to a point where people are dying in hospital corridors, we will lock down.rcs1000 said:A new lockdown is politically impossible.
The unwinding of restrictions, and in particular the failure to deal with Brits heading off holiday to CV19 hotpots followed almost immediately by school reopenings, pretty much guaranteed a new wave of cases.
Track and trace, due to testing deficiencies, is now also essentially dead.
So, we are going to almost certainly follow the Swedish example now.
This will, I'm afraid, result in very little changing. I can make this forecast because I've just come from Arizona, where pretty much all restrictions were removed about three months ago. And they went from closed by statute to open to closed by behaviour. It's gone from a de jure to a de facto lockdown.
People will still choose to avoid public transport. People will work from home. Shops will insist on mask wearing (because, it turns out more people shop with you if you insist on masks).
It will be good for bars and restaurants. However, if people don't feel safe, they don't go out. Whether in Sweden or Arizona or Vegas (all of whom have removed most of their restrictions), restaurant dining numbers are still dramatically down year-over-year. Indeed, the OpenTable numbers show most US states doing far, far worse than Germany (numbers actually up year over year) or the UK (flat).
So,
With more testing now, and people already taking some precautions, there will be much more warning, and so most people will voluntarily self-lockdown before it reaches that state. This is going to kill the hospitality industry as surely as a lockdown would, if it goes on long enough.0 -
Do you think the SNP would bring down Starmer's government over that? They'd risk bringing the Conservatives back to power and that would be the end of any talk of a second referendum. Also their supporters probably wouldn't thank them for bringing the party of Margaret Thatcher back to power. They might stick with the devil they know.HYUFD said:
And if the Labour rebels defeated the bill the SNP would bring down Starmer's government then anyway and there would be a snap general election which the Tories would hope to win.Fishing said:
If he became PM on those numbers I wonder if he'd be able to call a Scottish referendum? The Tories would presumably vote against, so it would all depend on the LDs and NIs. It might only take a couple of Labour rebels to defeat the bill.HYUFD said:
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.
Hence it is so important for him that Starmer makes gains in Scotland as well as England in 2024 if he is going to become PM and have a stable government0 -
I reckon the virus is going to leave over half of men over 50 that get it with permanent lung damage.0
-
On the subject of any future indyref2
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1306718512338132995?s=200 -
It depends on the extent to which more vulnerable and more anxious customers have returned to hospitality businesses, because people who are at very low risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid are liable to continue to patronise them, especially in areas of low viral prevalence.LostPassword said:
The virus spread more quickly in February/March because people hadn't started working from home, etc. There was also much less testing. The two combined meant that you could go very quickly from a situation of apparent calm, to dead in hospital corridors.Jonathan said:
Isn’t that entirely contingent on deaths remaining low. If we - god forbid - get to a point where people are dying in hospital corridors, we will lock down.rcs1000 said:A new lockdown is politically impossible.
The unwinding of restrictions, and in particular the failure to deal with Brits heading off holiday to CV19 hotpots followed almost immediately by school reopenings, pretty much guaranteed a new wave of cases.
Track and trace, due to testing deficiencies, is now also essentially dead.
So, we are going to almost certainly follow the Swedish example now.
This will, I'm afraid, result in very little changing. I can make this forecast because I've just come from Arizona, where pretty much all restrictions were removed about three months ago. And they went from closed by statute to open to closed by behaviour. It's gone from a de jure to a de facto lockdown.
People will still choose to avoid public transport. People will work from home. Shops will insist on mask wearing (because, it turns out more people shop with you if you insist on masks).
It will be good for bars and restaurants. However, if people don't feel safe, they don't go out. Whether in Sweden or Arizona or Vegas (all of whom have removed most of their restrictions), restaurant dining numbers are still dramatically down year-over-year. Indeed, the OpenTable numbers show most US states doing far, far worse than Germany (numbers actually up year over year) or the UK (flat).
So,
With more testing now, and people already taking some precautions, there will be much more warning, and so most people will voluntarily self-lockdown before it reaches that state. This is going to kill the hospitality industry as surely as a lockdown would, if it goes on long enough.
Mass voluntary isolation may leave these businesses with enough customers remaining to scrape by. An actual lockdown, on the other hand, will be death - because the Government won't be able to afford to hose them down with cash for a second time.1 -
The SNP bought down Callaghan's government when they did not get their demands met and if they are not going to get indyref2 then a Tory government just builds up further nationalist resentment, though as you say they also risk handing their seats back to Scottish Labour by doing soFishing said:
Do you think the SNP would bring down Starmer's government over that? They'd risk bringing the Conservatives back to power and that would be the end of any talk of a second referendum. Also their supporters probably wouldn't thank them for bringing the party of Margaret Thatcher back to power. They might stick with the devil they know.HYUFD said:
And if the Labour rebels defeated the bill the SNP would bring down Starmer's government then anyway and there would be a snap general election which the Tories would hope to win.Fishing said:
If he became PM on those numbers I wonder if he'd be able to call a Scottish referendum? The Tories would presumably vote against, so it would all depend on the LDs and NIs. It might only take a couple of Labour rebels to defeat the bill.HYUFD said:
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.
Hence it is so important for him that Starmer makes gains in Scotland as well as England in 2024 if he is going to become PM and have a stable government1 -
I think a lot of the demand for testing of school children is likely motivated by fear. There's a lot of fear surrounding the culture of parenting in Britain.Black_Rook said:
It depends on the extent to which more vulnerable and more anxious customers have returned to hospitality businesses, because people who are at very low risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid are liable to continue to patronise them, especially in areas of low viral prevalence.LostPassword said:
The virus spread more quickly in February/March because people hadn't started working from home, etc. There was also much less testing. The two combined meant that you could go very quickly from a situation of apparent calm, to dead in hospital corridors.Jonathan said:
Isn’t that entirely contingent on deaths remaining low. If we - god forbid - get to a point where people are dying in hospital corridors, we will lock down.rcs1000 said:A new lockdown is politically impossible.
The unwinding of restrictions, and in particular the failure to deal with Brits heading off holiday to CV19 hotpots followed almost immediately by school reopenings, pretty much guaranteed a new wave of cases.
Track and trace, due to testing deficiencies, is now also essentially dead.
So, we are going to almost certainly follow the Swedish example now.
This will, I'm afraid, result in very little changing. I can make this forecast because I've just come from Arizona, where pretty much all restrictions were removed about three months ago. And they went from closed by statute to open to closed by behaviour. It's gone from a de jure to a de facto lockdown.
People will still choose to avoid public transport. People will work from home. Shops will insist on mask wearing (because, it turns out more people shop with you if you insist on masks).
It will be good for bars and restaurants. However, if people don't feel safe, they don't go out. Whether in Sweden or Arizona or Vegas (all of whom have removed most of their restrictions), restaurant dining numbers are still dramatically down year-over-year. Indeed, the OpenTable numbers show most US states doing far, far worse than Germany (numbers actually up year over year) or the UK (flat).
So,
With more testing now, and people already taking some precautions, there will be much more warning, and so most people will voluntarily self-lockdown before it reaches that state. This is going to kill the hospitality industry as surely as a lockdown would, if it goes on long enough.
Mass voluntary isolation may leave these businesses with enough customers remaining to scrape by. An actual lockdown, on the other hand, will be death - because the Government won't be able to afford to hose them down with cash for a second time.
I think that, once hospitalisations and deaths go above a certain level you will see a lot of people that you would regard as statistically low-risk reacting out of what you would regard as irrational fear and staying away.0 -
Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
Many is an overstatement, though 2% rejection rate does add up.MrEd said:
According to the article someone posted here several threads back on how many people think that mail-in voting is easy but actually many votes get rejected because voters do not follow the rules, it could be inspired genius from Trump - get a lot more Democrat voters electing to vote by mail than on the day (look at the NC stats - many of the Democrat registered voters asking for mail in ballots voted early or on the day in 2016) meaning their is a greater chance their votes don't count.SeaShantyIrish2 said:One thing that's puzzling about Trumpsky's attack on postal voting and the United States Postal Service is that it
1) the first was NEVER likely to work (unless you could get lots of judges all drunk & keep them that way); and
2) the folks most sensitive to Trumpsky screwing up USPS are
a) seniors; and
b) rural residents
Which is why RNC and most sane (or less insane) GOPers are a best dubious.
On other hand, some of these rejectniks would have been turned away at the polls for lack of ID or not being on voter list or somesuch (rules vary pretty widely from state to state). And more would be unable or (esp. in the Year of the Crud) unwilling to vote in person.
Here in WA State, the convenience factor yields more votes than are lost via challenged mail ballots.
Also note that since August 2019, WA State has prepaid postage for all returned mail ballots. Which has resulted in substantial increase in turnout statewide, not just because it appeals to cheapskates BUT because you no longer have to hunt up a postage stamp, which (esp in final days before Election Day) can mean difference between returned ballot arriving on time, or at all.0 -
The days when Scottish voters were more bothered by whether Labour or Tories are in Downing Street are gone. Long gone.Fishing said:
Do you think the SNP would bring down Starmer's government over that? They'd risk bringing the Conservatives back to power and that would be the end of any talk of a second referendum. Also their supporters probably wouldn't thank them for bringing the party of Margaret Thatcher back to power. They might stick with the devil they know.HYUFD said:
And if the Labour rebels defeated the bill the SNP would bring down Starmer's government then anyway and there would be a snap general election which the Tories would hope to win.Fishing said:
If he became PM on those numbers I wonder if he'd be able to call a Scottish referendum? The Tories would presumably vote against, so it would all depend on the LDs and NIs. It might only take a couple of Labour rebels to defeat the bill.HYUFD said:
If he granted the SNP a referendum in that scenario and Scotland voted for independence, never mind being a small minority administration Starmer could conceivably then lose power to the Tories without a general election, indeed on today's poll he could become PM with only 258 seats and 58 SNP seats and 7 LD seats, yet without those SNP seats it would be a Tory government with a solid majorityFishing said:
Cameron had a stonking majority with an LD coalition, which enabled him to govern effectively. The British people for some reason expect their government to be in power as well as in office, which is why they despise minority governments or those with tiny majorities so much.HYUFD said:
Cameron managed OK without a majority from 2010 to 2015 though only with a LD coalition, ideologically Starmer is certainly closer to Brown or Ed Miliband than Blair even if he is not as extreme as CorbynFishing said:
I think if Starmer wins it may well be narrowly, maybe as head of a coalition or a PM with a majority of <20. So we will have a paralysed minority or small majority government. And how many successful PMs can you think of without working majorities? In the last sixty years, the only one I can is Wilson in '64.HYUFD said:
Unlikely, if Keir Starmer does become PM he will be the UK version of Francois Hollande in my view, an equally dull soft socialist who narrowly won because they were relatively inoffensive and voters were fed up of Boris as French voters were fed up of Sarkozy not out of much enthusiasm for him.Black_Rook said:
Oh, I don't know about that. Keir Starmer might go mad and order the Royal Navy to level Bristol with a Trident missile strike?rottenborough said:
Maybe. But not the shittiest. Johnson's shambles will always hold that prize.HYUFD said:
On today's Redfield poll though the Tories have a 2% lead they would lose their majority and Starmer would have enough seats to form a government with the SNP, PC and the LDs, though it would be the weakest government we have had since WW2CorrectHorseBattery said:This Government does not deserve to be ahead in the polls nor to be re-elected
Nah, you're probably right. Pray God our continual record of replacing one useless Prime Minister with an even worse one finally ends after Johnson.
Plus Thatcher and Cameron, arguably Blair were certainly better than the PMs they replaced
I don't see Starmer as having the ability to take dozens of decisions on the fly, like Blair. I think he'll be more like Brown or Ed Miliband, endlessly delaying. So I can't see him being that great.
But, of course, I could be wrong. And it's five years at least before we'll know.</p>
It is just about possible that Starmer could repeat Cameron's trick with the SNP if he gets say 315 seats and they win 50. But the SNP would want a referendum and if they won it he'd be a small majority administration again, as well as having lost a chunk of the country he was elected to lead.
Hence it is so important for him that Starmer makes gains in Scotland as well as England in 2024 if he is going to become PM and have a stable government
SNP voters won't abandon the SNP because they bring down a Labour Government that refuses a referendum. Those voters want independence and if the Westminster government goes back to the Tories it just further emphasises why they should be independent it won't drive SNP voters back to Labour.0 -
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
SNP voters aren't Labour voters on holiday. Those days are gone, just see how any SNP supporter on here speaks - they see Labour and Tories as two cheeks of the same Unionist arse.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP
If Labour are incapable of giving the SNP a second referendum (because it would leave them weak and destroy them in England) while the Tories are capable of giving them one - then the SNP and their voters will make a deal with the Tories if that is what it takes. They'll put a second referendum as a higher priority than who is in 10 Downing Street.0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
As 2017 showed given the right circumstances the SNP vote is vulnerable, the SNP fanatics are only a minority of Scots as 2014 proved.Philip_Thompson said:
SNP voters aren't Labour voters on holiday. Those days are gone, just see how any SNP supporter on here speaks - they see Labour and Tories as two cheeks of the same Unionist arse.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP
If Labour are incapable of giving the SNP a second referendum (because it would leave them weak and destroy them in England) while the Tories are capable of giving them one - then the SNP and their voters will make a deal with the Tories if that is what it takes. They'll put a second referendum as a higher priority than who is in 10 Downing Street.
The Tories will never give Scotland another referendum for decades, be assured of that, if indyref2 ever comes it will be via Labour but come with a PM committed to the EEA and devomax thus making a Yes vote less likely anyway.0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
Even if Biden wins it’s likely at least 45% of Americans will have voted for his opponent who is the most disgusting and corrupt nominee in living memory . Trump doesn’t give a damn how many Americans die from the virus and is packing people in at rallies with no social distancing or masks. I have very little sympathy for those Trump supporters who are like the Kool Aid Cult .
WTF happened to the USA !0 -
As he is not Head of State and if he repealed the FTPA without replacement the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called a general election by then whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP2 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
As he is not Head of State and the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called one whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
-
-
Biden also refused to decree a mask mandate! And he eats babies for breakfast then washes 'em down with the blood of evangelical virgins!
As for Woodward, wonder why Trumpsky working so hard to help sell his latest? Is he getting a cut from the publisher? Like he does (I think) from Trumpy Bear?0 -
That's not correct, as the monarch's power to dissolve Parliament came under the Septennial Act 1715 (as amended to reduce from seven to five years under the Parliament Act 1911). The Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011.HYUFD said:
As he is not Head of State and the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called one whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP
But he'd have zero chance of passing legislation through Commons and Lords to repeal the FTPA without any provision for when elections would be (whether reinstating the old rules or otherwise). Just not a runner at all.
Note that there was an attempt to repeal the FTPA introduced in the Lords by a Tory peer in late 2019 (killed off by dissolution of Parliament). But that repealed along with reinstatement of (essentially) the five year maximum. That's what would happen in reality.1 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
Yep. The closest they can get to status quo ante is that parliament is dissolved by order in council. I don't think it can ever be returned to the prerogative.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That's not correct, as the monarch's power to dissolve Parliament came under the Septennial Act 1715 (as amended to reduce from seven to five years under the Parliament Act 1911). The Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011.HYUFD said:
As he is not Head of State and the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called one whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP
But he'd have zero chance of passing legislation through Commons and Lords to repeal the FTPA without any provision for when elections would be (whether reinstating the old rules or otherwise). Just not a runner at all.
Note that there was an attempt to repeal the FTPA introduced in the Lords by a Tory peer in late 2019 (killed off by dissolution of Parliament). But that repealed along with reinstatement of (essentially) the five year maximum. That's what would happen in reality.0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
That's true, but technically the monarch's power under the Septennial Act 1715 was not a prerogrative power precisely because Parliament had legislated to give it to the monarch. It was the successor legislation of Triennial Acts in 1641, 1644 and 1694 - all vigorously opposed by the monarchs of the day precisely because they were about regularising elections as opposed to the former prerogative position where Parliament sat at the pleasure of, and for the benefit of, the monarch. That the monarch is mentioned in the 1715 Act is a courtesy to distract from the fact that this series of legislation actually completely hollowed out their powers regarding calling/dissolving Parliaments.RobD said:
Yep. The closest they can get to status quo ante is that parliament is dissolved by order in council. I don't think it can ever be returned to the prerogative.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That's not correct, as the monarch's power to dissolve Parliament came under the Septennial Act 1715 (as amended to reduce from seven to five years under the Parliament Act 1911). The Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011.HYUFD said:
As he is not Head of State and the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called one whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP
But he'd have zero chance of passing legislation through Commons and Lords to repeal the FTPA without any provision for when elections would be (whether reinstating the old rules or otherwise). Just not a runner at all.
Note that there was an attempt to repeal the FTPA introduced in the Lords by a Tory peer in late 2019 (killed off by dissolution of Parliament). But that repealed along with reinstatement of (essentially) the five year maximum. That's what would happen in reality.4 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
In 1990, David Duke the former Grand Wizard of the KKK got 44% of the vote in the Louisiana senate race. These people have always been around. Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign with a speech calling for 'States Rights' in the same Mississippi county 3 civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.nico679 said:Even if Biden wins it’s likely at least 45% of Americans will have voted for his opponent who is the most disgusting and corrupt nominee in living memory . Trump doesn’t give a damn how many Americans die from the virus and is packing people in at rallies with no social distancing or masks. I have very little sympathy for those Trump supporters who are like the Kool Aid Cult .
WTF happened to the USA !
The republican party has been drilling the same well of racial and social animosity for the last 50 odd years.0 -
After the prorogation business I don't think we can be at all confident that The Queen will intervene to overrule her Prime Minister to enforce an unwritten rule.HYUFD said:
As he is not Head of State and if he repealed the FTPA without replacement the Queen would force a dissolution of Parliament after 5 years if he had not called a general election by then whatever he thought about itMexicanpete said:
Why doesn't Boris repeal the FTPA without replacement? An election would not be required until the 80 seat majority dies out. You might have 25 years. It certainly prevents SIndyref2 for a generation.HYUFD said:
Except if there is a hung parliament in 2024 it will almost certainly be Starmer not Boris as PM and reliant on SNP support, if the SNP ever supported the Tories they would be thrown out of office in Scotland. Starmer would also shift the UK government towards an EEA style deal with the EU and devomax for Scotland. Not to mention most Tories including me would never countenance any deals with the SNP to threaten the Union.Philip_Thompson said:Unlikely hypothetical scenario that could lead to a September 2025 Boris departure due to SindyRef2 (not saying it will happen but its fun to hypothesise and each step is plausible) . . .
- SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
- They demand a Section 30 agreement
- Boris says no, not a generation yet.
- SNP unable to force through a referendum without a Section 30 agreement.
- 2024 election results in a Hung Parliament
- Hung Parliament the Tories are by a clear margin the largest party and hold a clear majority of English seats, but the SNP dominate Scottish seats once more. Tories would have a majority without Scotland.
- SNP demand a Section 30 agreement in exchange for their votes in Westminster.
- Labour even with the SNP would be incapable of passing English legislation due to English Votes for English Law and know that granting the section 30 and seeing Scotland go independent would wipe out their majority.
- Surprise deal reached between SNP and Tories - Tories will grant an immediate Section 30 agreement in exchange for the SNP abstaining on Confidence motions until after the referendum. Tories get to stay in office in the UK, while the SNP get their referendum.
- Scotland holds their referendum, Yes wins, Boris resigns.
If the Tories stay in power in a hung parliament it will be through the DUP not the SNP0 - SNP win a majority at next Holyrood election.
-
If there is anyone out there yet convinced of the value of face mask-wearing in a time of COVID, read this:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913
It posits that initial viral dose - the inoculum - is an important factor in disease progression and in particular severity of the disease. Thus those who receive lower initial doses of the virus when they are infected because they are wearing a mask are far more likely to have asymptomatic infections.
Some stunning numbers
- an Argentinian cruise ships with infections where face mask-wearing was widespread had 80% asymptomatic cases (as opposed to early cruise ship outbreaks with no mask wearing rate of 20%).
- an outbreak in a meat processing plant with universal mask wearing - 95% asymptomatic with the remaining 5% having only mild to moderate symptoms.3 -
1 -
Basically, if we all wear masks and avoid karaoke bars, it's going to be ok.TimT said:If there is anyone out there yet convinced of the value of face mask-wearing in a time of COVID, read this:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913
It posits that initial viral dose - the inoculum - is an important factor in disease progression and in particular severity of the disease. Thus those who receive lower initial doses of the virus when they are infected because they are wearing a mask are far more likely to have asymptomatic infections.
Some stunning numbers
- an Argentinian cruise ships with infections where face mask-wearing was widespread had 80% asymptomatic cases (as opposed to early cruise ship outbreaks with no mask wearing rate of 20%).
- an outbreak in a meat processing plant with universal mask wearing - 95% asymptomatic with the remaining 5% having only mild to moderate symptoms.3 -
Is there any chance we can get rid of the additional scrollbar in this new format?0
-
I don't have an extra scroll bar with Firefox. First time I've seen the new format as I prefer the logical Vanilla Forum system better .. and it saves reading the thread headers!Beibheirli_C said:Is there any chance we can get rid of the additional scrollbar in this new format?
0 -
We are in no place to throw stones as we could have had Corbyn as PM last year. His supporters were just as much of a Kool Aid Cult.nico679 said:Even if Biden wins it’s likely at least 45% of Americans will have voted for his opponent who is the most disgusting and corrupt nominee in living memory . Trump doesn’t give a damn how many Americans die from the virus and is packing people in at rallies with no social distancing or masks. I have very little sympathy for those Trump supporters who are like the Kool Aid Cult .
WTF happened to the USA !1
This discussion has been closed.