FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
That's what I thought.
We should close down all the former polys, I mean would anyone really miss them?
University should be solely for the academically gifted.
I sympathise, but there are over 2 million at university at any given time. Maybe the academically gifted are half a million of those. What are you going to do with the remaining 1.5 million I wonder? Not enough jobs to go round, especially at the moment.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
This. Trump has very little hope of victory without the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) rigging the process in his favour.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers as far away from the entire process as possible...
Don't get me wrong, the law is extremely important but it's not the be all and end all of civilisation
The concept of the rule of law and its importance goes all the way to the Ancient Greeks.
“Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.” (Aeschylus’s The Oresteia). It
And Ministers will be curbed by law.
What the law is will be changed but that is what Parliament does. That is what Parliament has always done.
And so when Parliament legislates to say that there will be no further elections and the courts have no right to overturn that legilsation it will be fine.
Either you believe in the rule of law, Phil, or you don't. And you don't.
If Parliament legislated to say that there will be no further elections then that would be the law.
In those circumstances 100% absolutely I would not support, believe or defend the law. I would support breaking the law to get the law changed in those circumstances absolutely. Wouldn't you?
You continuously misrepresent what “the rule of law” means. Legislating to remove elections would be a contravention of the rule of law. There is no contradiction.
If a Labour government were proposing what this government is proposing, Phil would be outraged. He is a hack, not a libertarian, a Conservative or a democrat.
Phil is worse than me (in my support for Keir) in his unfailing support for anything Boris Johnson does or says. You can be sure he will argue for Johnson, doesn't matter how illogical or ridiculous.
That's not true, I could name half a dozen times I've opposed Johnson.
Just because I don't agree with the herd here always, doesn't mean I always support Johnson.
Go on then link three posts where you have opposed Johnson. I suspect you can't because I certainly can't remember you ever being anything other than a fawning lickspittle fanboy
I'm not going searching for posts unless you're going to call these examples lies. Just off the top of my head.
I have called for the Triple Lock to be scrapped and I oppose Johnson keeping it.
I opposed the formula for A-Level awards and called for that to be scrapped before it was popular to do so andbefore the u-turn.
I called for a u-turn on charging foreign NHS and care workers the NHS surcharge before it happened.
I support the Brady Amendment on ensuring Parliamentary oversight of COVID restrictions.
I supported the Amendment to the IM Bill on ensuring Parliamentary approval before Minsters exercising their powers.
I opposed Johnson voting for May's Withdrawal Agreement on MV3.
I could probably think up other examples but I said half a dozen and its more than you're requested three.
No those are fine and yes do remember some of them now you have reminded me. I retract my statement
I'm afraid Philip you showed your lack of honesty in your objectivity when you had spent several months attacking Labour's economic policies from 2001 onwards as overspending and then did a complete U-turn as soon as Johnson started doing the same thing
Sorry that is bovine manure.
I opposed Brown increasing the deficit 2001 onwards before the recession. I have never attacked Brown for the deficit increasing during the recession. I attacked Brown for what he did 2001-2007, not for what he did 2007-08.
Unless you think there is no recession or economic crisis the response this year is not the same thing as 2001.
That's a huge lead on that question, IMHO this is why given time Labour will lead by several points.
Unlikely as most of those who prefer Starmer in Scotland will be voting SNP, until Starmer can convert them to voting Scottish Labour again he is unlikely to get a majority even if he becomes PM
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
That's what I thought.
We should close down all the former polys, I mean would anyone really miss them?
University should be solely for the academically gifted.
I sympathise, but there are over 2 million at university at any given time. Maybe the academically gifted are half a million of those. What are you going to do with the remaining 1.5 million I wonder? Not enough jobs to go round, especially at the moment.
I know - open up the former polys as new polys!
Give them apprenticeships, level 5 higher apprentices earn more over their lifetime than all graduates on average except those who attended Oxbridge and Russell Group universities
A pedant would tell you that the University of Cambridge and the dump are members of the Russell Group, so your comment 'Oxbridge and Russell Group universities' is a horrendous tautology.
I have to come out and go back in often 3 or 4 times before eventually I get PB.
How the hell is that happening? How do I stop it?
Cheers kjh
Put an Ad blocker on your phone.
Thank you. Is that all this is? I don't mind ads. This however prevents me getting to PB. It is very intrusive. I have never seen it before and don't get it with any other web site.
Anyone playing on Shadsy's Buzzword Bingo for the debate tonight? I can't see much value myself; Putin at Evens looks about the best of a thin bunch. Any other suggestions?
I'm not playing but if I was I would say the following:
Law and Order at 4/9 China Virus at 8/11 Hardworking Americans at 2/1
In terms of people joining and rejoining, it's not my site, I don't set the rules. Other sites have tough rules on it, others don't.
I just think that if you're going to come on here and be continuously objectionable to people and annoy people just for the sake of it on a daily/weekly basis, people will get tired of it and quickly see who it is.
I've only been here a year and I could spot Sean a mile away. For our long time users it might be very boring.
We've all got into bother on here, including and especially me but I have tried to make amends where it's possible. I've never seen any kind of understanding from Sean or his latest iteration.
I think that you take this board a little too seriously (and quite possibly life as well). I am on here mainly for entertainment as well as education and Sean, in all his iterations, is a highly entertaining writer with a real skill with words. The site would be poorer without him and I see no advantage in making his participation here more difficult. I felt the same about Tim back in the day who could be wickedly funny.
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
That's what I thought.
We should close down all the former polys, I mean would anyone really miss them?
University should be solely for the academically gifted.
I sympathise, but there are over 2 million at university at any given time. Maybe the academically gifted are half a million of those. What are you going to do with the remaining 1.5 million I wonder? Not enough jobs to go round, especially at the moment.
I know - open up the former polys as new polys!
National Service?
Covid Marshals?
Everybody is gifted. The issue comes because we've prized 'academic' gifts above all others, so everyone wants a slice of that pie.
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
If there was an industry you know isn't going to come back - (perhaps cruise ships) - what's the benefit in propping it up?
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
If there is a vaccine found then I am sure cruise ships will come back, BigG certainly seems to enjoy them with his wife and they are certainly something I would explore when I get to retirement age.
However understandably for the moment the older demographic who are their biggest market are steering clear given they are most at risk from Covid
We have sailed our last cruise and have no regrets having sailed from the Artic to the Antarctic and many places in between
It was exactly one year ago we sailed out of Manhattan on our 24 day transatlantic cruise from Southampton
Before covid we decided no more cruising but I seriously regret that the opportunities my wife and I had over many years may well be quite some way time away before cruising becomes safe again and in particular the large 24 hour buffets so used in the industry
Yes I hope my partner and I will be able to enjoy them as you and your wife did BigG but for the moment unfortunately that is some time away
I hope so to HYUFD
Our time cruising was so much about the destinations than anything to do with the entertainment and dining to be honest
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
I have no idea what your family circumstances are but you are the equivalent of people who say "no clients no problems" when faced with business challenges.
You cannot lock up students, some of whom are vulnerable (or will be after their newly-acquired tequila habit) and forbid them from seeing their parents.
Well of course you would but that's no kind of a society to live in.
I'm afraid Philip you showed your lack of honesty in your objectivity when you had spent several months attacking Labour's economic policies from 2001 onwards as overspending and then did a complete U-turn as soon as Johnson started doing the same thing
Sorry that is bovine manure.
I opposed Brown increasing the deficit 2001 onwards before the recession. I have never attacked Brown for the deficit increasing during the recession. I attacked Brown for what he did 2001-2007, not for what he did 2007-08.
Unless you think there is no recession or economic crisis the response this year is not the same thing as 2001.
Not to the best of my knowledge...
Come on be fair. Even you in your claim made clear my objection was what he had done from 2001 onwards.
The issue was 2001 to 2007 for me, not 2007 to 2008. Spending during a crisis is a necessity, there are some automatic stabilisers precisely for that reason. That is why destroying the budget before the crash like Brown did from 2001 onwards is so utterly unforgiveable, because it leaves you nowhere to go when the next inevitable crisis hits.
People act like Brown would have been fine were it not for the Financial Crisis. My point is, was and always has been that recessions happen. If it wasn't the Financial Crisis it would have been something else. Something eventually happens. You can not abolish busts.
Brown's issue was he hubristically claimed he had abolished busts and so spent accordingly.
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
I have no idea what your family circumstances are but you are the equivalent of people who say "no clients no problems" when faced with business challenges.
You cannot lock up students, some of whom are vulnerable (or will be after their newly-acquired tequila habit) and forbid them from seeing their parents.
Well of course you would but that's no kind of a society to live in.
Assuming the parents are fit and healthy is a big assumption. When my son was at university while still in my mid forties I still had chemical induced COPD from working in a lab and a case of covid could well be toes up time
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
If there was an industry you know isn't going to come back - (perhaps cruise ships) - what's the benefit in propping it up?
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
See point 8: “Consider converting grants/bounce back loans into compensation for closed businesses, perhaps making it conditional on being used – at least in part – to create new ones/learn new skills/retrain.”
So not bankruptcy and unemployment but compensation allowing new businesses to arise.
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
If there was an industry you know isn't going to come back - (perhaps cruise ships) - what's the benefit in propping it up?
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
If there is a vaccine found then I am sure cruise ships will come back, BigG certainly seems to enjoy them with his wife and they are certainly something I would explore when I get to retirement age.
However understandably for the moment the older demographic who are their biggest market are steering clear given they are most at risk from Covid
We have sailed our last cruise and have no regrets having sailed from the Artic to the Antarctic and many places in between
It was exactly one year ago we sailed out of Manhattan on our 24 day transatlantic cruise from Southampton
Before covid we decided no more cruising but I seriously regret that the opportunities my wife and I had over many years may well be quite some way time away before cruising becomes safe again and in particular the large 24 hour buffets so used in the industry
Yes I hope my partner and I will be able to enjoy them as you and your wife did BigG but for the moment unfortunately that is some time away
I hope so to HYUFD
Our time cruising was so much about the destinations than anything to do with the entertainment and dining to be honest
True, though cruising is an ideal way to see so many destinations and in the Arctic for example destinations you would be unlikely to get to otherwise as I know you found
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
That's what I thought.
We should close down all the former polys, I mean would anyone really miss them?
University should be solely for the academically gifted.
No, no, no, no, no ....
No!
The former polys should return to being polytechnics. In the 80's the polys were getting the reputation of being so called second rate univertities. What was the "solution" offered by the Major government in the 90's? They turned the so called second rate universiteis into actual second rate universities. They were supposed to suddenly compete with the universities and apply for research grants from the same research councils and so on. That was a disaster, as they didn't stand a chance competing with the classical unis.
Universities are primarily resarch institutions that also teach students the theory underlying their reseach. The "old" British universities are great at that. The aim of the polytechnics was to teach students the practical aspects of a subject to a thorough level, with enough theory, that they can understand the implementation. As the name suggests this was often in a science or engineering field, but other practical degree programmes can also be taught at polytechnics. In terms of entering the work place a poly student graduate be better suited to the job on day one, but a uni graduate ought to be more flexible in adapting to a new job.
I am proud to say that here in Germany the distiction between unis and poly is still strong, and works very well. The "poly" where I work has many excellent practical degree programmes and the graduates are very well suited to the job market.
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
That's what I thought.
We should close down all the former polys, I mean would anyone really miss them?
University should be solely for the academically gifted.
I sympathise, but there are over 2 million at university at any given time. Maybe the academically gifted are half a million of those. What are you going to do with the remaining 1.5 million I wonder? Not enough jobs to go round, especially at the moment.
I know - open up the former polys as new polys!
Give them apprenticeships, level 5 higher apprentices earn more over their lifetime than all graduates on average except those who attended Oxbridge and Russell Group universities
A pedant would tell you that the University of Cambridge and the dump are members of the Russell Group, so your comment 'Oxbridge and Russell Group universities' is a horrendous tautology.
Though Oxbridge graduates earn slighly more, £1.79 million over a lifetime to £1.6 million for graduates of other Russell Group universities.
A few very highly paid jobs like commercial barristers for example are effectively restricted to Oxbridge graduates
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
This. Trump has very little hope of victory without the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) rigging the process in his favour.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers as far away from the entire process as possible...
Don't get me wrong, the law is extremely important but it's not the be all and end all of civilisation
The concept of the rule of law and its importance goes all the way to the Ancient Greeks.
“Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.” (Aeschylus’s The Oresteia). It
And Ministers will be curbed by law.
What the law is will be changed but that is what Parliament does. That is what Parliament has always done.
And so when Parliament legislates to say that there will be no further elections and the courts have no right to overturn that legilsation it will be fine.
Either you believe in the rule of law, Phil, or you don't. And you don't.
If Parliament legislated to say that there will be no further elections then that would be the law.
In those circumstances 100% absolutely I would not support, believe or defend the law. I would support breaking the law to get the law changed in those circumstances absolutely. Wouldn't you?
You continuously misrepresent what “the rule of law” means. Legislating to remove elections would be a contravention of the rule of law. There is no contradiction.
If a Labour government were proposing what this government is proposing, Phil would be outraged. He is a hack, not a libertarian, a Conservative or a democrat.
Phil is worse than me (in my support for Keir) in his unfailing support for anything Boris Johnson does or says. You can be sure he will argue for Johnson, doesn't matter how illogical or ridiculous.
That's not true, I could name half a dozen times I've opposed Johnson.
Just because I don't agree with the herd here always, doesn't mean I always support Johnson.
Go on then link three posts where you have opposed Johnson. I suspect you can't because I certainly can't remember you ever being anything other than a fawning lickspittle fanboy
I'm not going searching for posts unless you're going to call these examples lies. Just off the top of my head.
I have called for the Triple Lock to be scrapped and I oppose Johnson keeping it.
I opposed the formula for A-Level awards and called for that to be scrapped before it was popular to do so andbefore the u-turn.
I called for a u-turn on charging foreign NHS and care workers the NHS surcharge before it happened.
I support the Brady Amendment on ensuring Parliamentary oversight of COVID restrictions.
I supported the Amendment to the IM Bill on ensuring Parliamentary approval before Minsters exercising their powers.
I opposed Johnson voting for May's Withdrawal Agreement on MV3.
I could probably think up other examples but I said half a dozen and its more than you're requested three.
No those are fine and yes do remember some of them now you have reminded me. I retract my statement
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
He did. On the basis that the Section 45 powers only related to Sections 42 and 43 (relating to GB/NI trade). But I think there were two flaws in his analysis: (1) that if the government purported to exercise the S.45 powers more widely, S.45 itself tries to stop a challenge to that. Whether the courts would agree is another matter; and (2) even if the powers are primarily exercised for a proper purpose they could still breach a domestic law and S.45 allows them to do that. So the likely effect and certainly the intention of this section is very wide indeed.
Subsequent laws can override previous laws. The Human Rights Act sets itself above other laws, why can't this one?
Oh FFS! Bangs head on desk.
Try - just try for once - to understand the difference between laws which apply to all and a law which allows the rulers to be unconstrained by any laws at all ie to put them above the law. At that point we have a lawless society because no-one else can rely on the law because the government has given itself the power simply to ignore any law at all and has sought to give itself the power to stop any challenge to this.
Each of us - including you - will have lost the protection of the law because we can no longer rely on it if the government decides to ignore it.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
This. Trump has very little hope of victory without the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) rigging the process in his favour.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers as far away from the entire process as possible...
Don't get me wrong, the law is extremely important but it's not the be all and end all of civilisation
The concept of the rule of law and its importance goes all the way to the Ancient Greeks.
“Let no man live uncurbed by law or curbed by tyranny.” (Aeschylus’s The Oresteia). It
And Ministers will be curbed by law.
What the law is will be changed but that is what Parliament does. That is what Parliament has always done.
And so when Parliament legislates to say that there will be no further elections and the courts have no right to overturn that legilsation it will be fine.
Either you believe in the rule of law, Phil, or you don't. And you don't.
If Parliament legislated to say that there will be no further elections then that would be the law.
In those circumstances 100% absolutely I would not support, believe or defend the law. I would support breaking the law to get the law changed in those circumstances absolutely. Wouldn't you?
You continuously misrepresent what “the rule of law” means. Legislating to remove elections would be a contravention of the rule of law. There is no contradiction.
If a Labour government were proposing what this government is proposing, Phil would be outraged. He is a hack, not a libertarian, a Conservative or a democrat.
Phil is worse than me (in my support for Keir) in his unfailing support for anything Boris Johnson does or says. You can be sure he will argue for Johnson, doesn't matter how illogical or ridiculous.
That's not true, I could name half a dozen times I've opposed Johnson.
Just because I don't agree with the herd here always, doesn't mean I always support Johnson.
Go on then link three posts where you have opposed Johnson. I suspect you can't because I certainly can't remember you ever being anything other than a fawning lickspittle fanboy
I'm not going searching for posts unless you're going to call these examples lies. Just off the top of my head.
I have called for the Triple Lock to be scrapped and I oppose Johnson keeping it.
I opposed the formula for A-Level awards and called for that to be scrapped before it was popular to do so andbefore the u-turn.
I called for a u-turn on charging foreign NHS and care workers the NHS surcharge before it happened.
I support the Brady Amendment on ensuring Parliamentary oversight of COVID restrictions.
I supported the Amendment to the IM Bill on ensuring Parliamentary approval before Minsters exercising their powers.
I opposed Johnson voting for May's Withdrawal Agreement on MV3.
I could probably think up other examples but I said half a dozen and its more than you're requested three.
No those are fine and yes do remember some of them now you have reminded me. I retract my statement
Thank you.
Credit to you for acknowledging that.
I still think you are too uncritical of the tories however, I take the view no one should be on the side of any politician. By all means give them credit when they do something good but on the whole they aren't on our side so examine carefully everything they do
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
If there was an industry you know isn't going to come back - (perhaps cruise ships) - what's the benefit in propping it up?
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
See point 8: “Consider converting grants/bounce back loans into compensation for closed businesses, perhaps making it conditional on being used – at least in part – to create new ones/learn new skills/retrain.”
So not bankruptcy and unemployment but compensation allowing new businesses to arise.
Isn't that already the case with a bounce back loan - it's still a loan but you can use that money to restructure your business however you see fit.
Anyone playing on Shadsy's Buzzword Bingo for the debate tonight? I can't see much value myself; Putin at Evens looks about the best of a thin bunch. Any other suggestions?
I'm not playing but if I was I would say the following:
Law and Order at 4/9 China Virus at 8/11 Hardworking Americans at 2/1
Interesting. The 1st 2 are so nailed on that I would recommend the double (if allowed). But the last one - "Hardworking Americans" - has little appeal at any price let alone 2/1. There's SEVEN syllables there, each coming hard on the heels of the previous one. This is simply too risky for either man to attempt on such a big stage with so much at stake.
I'm sure the VAT issue is currently going through the courts. And Uber were found to have resolved historic issues with regards to safety and criminal checks so should be given another chance.
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
I have no idea what your family circumstances are but you are the equivalent of people who say "no clients no problems" when faced with business challenges.
You cannot lock up students, some of whom are vulnerable (or will be after their newly-acquired tequila habit) and forbid them from seeing their parents.
Well of course you would but that's no kind of a society to live in.
Assuming the parents are fit and healthy is a big assumption. When my son was at university while still in my mid forties I still had chemical induced COPD from working in a lab and a case of covid could well be toes up time
Absolutely - you need to match your actions with your risk. A friend whose wife is a nurse had to segregate his daughter (aged 10yrs) from his wife. They were in different parts of the house (they had the luxury of being able to do that) and hadn't hugged for all of lockdown.
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
The parents of many students are over 50 and quite a few have parents over 60.
When I went to uni my dad had been retired for 4 years and that was in the 80's when parent age was considerably younger than it is now.
Yes. I'll be 55 when youngest starts. 58 by the time he finishes. Don't think I am particularly unusual in that. And although I am in reasonably good health for now and within the recommended BMI range, I sadly cannot say that for many of my peers.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
He did. On the basis that the Section 45 powers only related to Sections 42 and 43 (relating to GB/NI trade). But I think there were two flaws in his analysis: (1) that if the government purported to exercise the S.45 powers more widely, S.45 itself tries to stop a challenge to that. Whether the courts would agree is another matter; and (2) even if the powers are primarily exercised for a proper purpose they could still breach a domestic law and S.45 allows them to do that. So the likely effect and certainly the intention of this section is very wide indeed.
Subsequent laws can override previous laws. The Human Rights Act sets itself above other laws, why can't this one?
Oh FFS! Bangs head on desk.
Try - just try for once - to understand the difference between laws which apply to all and a law which allows the rulers to be unconstrained by any laws at all ie to put them above the law. At that point we have a lawless society because no-one else can rely on the law because the government has given itself the power simply to ignore any law at all and has sought to give itself the power to stop any challenge to this.
Each of us - including you - will have lost the protection of the law because we can no longer rely on it if the government decides to ignore it.
Too many people here are looking for an answer to a age long dilemma about power and authority when no answer that is both simple and final is available.
The issue of what arises if the controversial sections of the bill were put into effect will be decided by the Supreme Court after a lengthy and thoughtful process in which top lawyers will argue two or maybe more than two different answers, each with a strong and reasoned case backing it.
That alone won't end the matter because it will not prevent parliament legislating or the SC continuing to pronounce.
No-one knows what happens if the SC decides that (for example) the 'Legalising of Torture of Children for Fun Act 2021' is to be struck down as unlawful, and no-one knows what happens if the government decides to disobey a SC ruling. And it is best not to find out. It is best not to know whether the court is supreme over parliament or vice versa because it is important but not a knowable item.
Thinking about why those politicians who the public consider to have personality (Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, Boris) beat those who they don't (Foot, Brown, Miliband, Howard, Starmer) even when the latter lead on more "important" attributes...
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Election campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
He did. On the basis that the Section 45 powers only related to Sections 42 and 43 (relating to GB/NI trade). But I think there were two flaws in his analysis: (1) that if the government purported to exercise the S.45 powers more widely, S.45 itself tries to stop a challenge to that. Whether the courts would agree is another matter; and (2) even if the powers are primarily exercised for a proper purpose they could still breach a domestic law and S.45 allows them to do that. So the likely effect and certainly the intention of this section is very wide indeed.
Subsequent laws can override previous laws. The Human Rights Act sets itself above other laws, why can't this one?
Oh FFS! Bangs head on desk.
Try - just try for once - to understand the difference between laws which apply to all and a law which allows the rulers to be unconstrained by any laws at all ie to put them above the law. At that point we have a lawless society because no-one else can rely on the law because the government has given itself the power simply to ignore any law at all and has sought to give itself the power to stop any challenge to this.
Each of us - including you - will have lost the protection of the law because we can no longer rely on it if the government decides to ignore it.
But they won't be ignoring it, they will be following the law. The law does not allow anyone to be unconstrained by any laws at all, it permits actions within a very narrow scope to override pre-existing laws. It is not a free for all.
Thinking about why those politicians who the public consider to have personality (Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, Boris) beat those who they don't (Foot, Brown, Miliband, Howard, Starmer) even when the latter lead on more "important" attributes...
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Elections campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
Though not always eg Attlee beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950 and Heath beat Wilson in 1970 and Major beat Kinnock in 1992 and May beat Corbyn (just) in 2017 and all were duller than their opponents
Thinking about why those politicians who the public consider to have personality (Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, Boris) beat those who they don't (Foot, Brown, Miliband, Howard, Starmer) even when the latter lead on more "important" attributes...
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Elections campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
Though not always eg Attlee beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950 and Heath beat Wilson in 1970 and Major beat Kinnock in 1992 and May beat Corbyn (just) in 2017 and all were duller than their opponents
May threw away a humongous lead from campaign start to Election day, in part because of her poor personality ratings. It was really a win for Corbyn. I think personality is more important now than it was in the distant past, when politicians were less media savvy
Thinking about why those politicians who the public consider to have personality (Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, Boris) beat those who they don't (Foot, Brown, Miliband, Howard, Starmer) even when the latter lead on more "important" attributes...
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Elections campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
Though not always eg Attlee beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950 and Heath beat Wilson in 1970 and Major beat Kinnock in 1992 and May beat Corbyn (just) in 2017 and all were duller than their opponents
May threw away a humongous lead from campaign start to Election day, in part because of her poor personality ratings. It was really a win for Corbyn. I think personality is more important now than it was in the distant past, when politicians were less media savvy
May still won 55 seats more than Corbyn did in 2017.
TV was also well under way in both 1970 and 1992 but Heath and Major still won, what connected them and May was they were able to present themselves as more centrist and fiscally competent than their opponents despite their dullness. The equally dull John Howard won 4 elections in Australia again by presenting himself as fiscally competent, same with the very dull Angela Merkel in Germany.
So yes charisma does normally win but not always if the charismatic leader is less centrist than their opponent and not trusted on the economy or if the dull leader is leading his party after a long period out of power and at a time when there was a mood for change as was the case for Attlee in 1945 and for Hollande in France in 2012 when he beat Sarkozy and maybe for Starmer in 2024
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Point 2 the foundation of agile development, something the government seriously struggles with. I'd rather ship a working product and improve it to the point of near perfection over the following few weeks than have nothing and try and ship a perfect product that may need years in development.
I'm sure the VAT issue is currently going through the courts. And Uber were found to have resolved historic issues with regards to safety and criminal checks so should be given another chance.
Londoners are safer with uber (and similar) around than they were before or would be if they were removed. There were tens of thousands of journeys made each week with completely unlicensed drivers working independently, now those will be rare.
Regulate uber and force them to improve is a much better outcome for users of taxis (ride shares!) than a ban.
On the curent 538 national polling average using Universal Swing I have Biden beating Trump in Georgia by 0.04%. About 989 votes.
Using the RCP poll average on UNS Biden would pick up Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, NE02, Arizona and North Carolina but Trump would hold Georgia by just over 1%
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
The parents of many students are over 50 and quite a few have parents over 60.
When I went to uni my dad had been retired for 4 years and that was in the 80's when parent age was considerably younger than it is now.
Yes. I'll be 55 when youngest starts. 58 by the time he finishes. Don't think I am particularly unusual in that. And although I am in reasonably good health for now and within the recommended BMI range, I sadly cannot say that for many of my peers.
Before you get complacent, wait to see if he's doing a PHD....😏
Dom's "no comms fuckups" command centre, working a treat...
What is this obsession with finding loopholes. The whole point of the policy is to reduce the number of times you meet other people. How hard is that to understand?
PM calling FE training for newly unemployed "boot camps". Joy.
It is a standard term in IT industry, which are run for those retraining to be coders.
Oh I see. Did not know that thanks. So this raises another question. "Skills employers value" is going to mean just IT then is it? I can see a need for more care staff, a huge demand for mental health support, not to mention the shocking levels of literacy and numeracy generally. I sincerely hope they will be covered too. Not everyone can be a coder.
I'm afraid Philip you showed your lack of honesty in your objectivity when you had spent several months attacking Labour's economic policies from 2001 onwards as overspending and then did a complete U-turn as soon as Johnson started doing the same thing
Sorry that is bovine manure.
I opposed Brown increasing the deficit 2001 onwards before the recession. I have never attacked Brown for the deficit increasing during the recession. I attacked Brown for what he did 2001-2007, not for what he did 2007-08.
Unless you think there is no recession or economic crisis the response this year is not the same thing as 2001.
Not to the best of my knowledge...
Come on be fair. Even you in your claim made clear my objection was what he had done from 2001 onwards.
The issue was 2001 to 2007 for me, not 2007 to 2008. Spending during a crisis is a necessity, there are some automatic stabilisers precisely for that reason. That is why destroying the budget before the crash like Brown did from 2001 onwards is so utterly unforgiveable, because it leaves you nowhere to go when the next inevitable crisis hits.
People act like Brown would have been fine were it not for the Financial Crisis. My point is, was and always has been that recessions happen. If it wasn't the Financial Crisis it would have been something else. Something eventually happens. You can not abolish busts.
Brown's issue was he hubristically claimed he had abolished busts and so spent accordingly.
Usual mixture of Brownaphobic abuse facilitated by ladybird economics. You talk as if there is some precisely predictable up and down "cycle" whereby one can see a downturn on the horizon and start squirreling away money to use when it hits. The truth is there is nothing predictable about the macro economy apart from there will be ups and there will be downs and there will be flats. Annual growth can go up up down flat up down flat. Or it might go up down up down flat up down up up up and away in my beautiful balloon. Or then again possibly flat flat up down up down flat down down deeper and down. Etc. The point is, we are always before a crash and we are always before a boom. We are always after both of these things too. The shape of the curve can be predicted with great accuracy, don't get me wrong, but only in retrospect.
Dom's "no comms fuckups" command centre, working a treat...
What is this obsession with finding loopholes. The whole point of the policy is to reduce the number of times you meet other people. How hard is that to understand?
Well the media still can't get the basic facts about cases and deaths right after 6 months....
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Point 2 the foundation of agile development, something the government seriously struggles with. I'd rather ship a working product and improve it to the point of near perfection over the following few weeks than have nothing and try and ship a perfect product that may need years in development.
As it stands, we might well end up ordering someone else's solution anyway, but several months later.
And to make it worse, an imperfect test is already of great utility now.
PM calling FE training for newly unemployed "boot camps". Joy.
It is a standard term in IT industry, which are run for those retraining to be coders.
Oh I see. Did not know that thanks. So this raises another question. "Skills employers value" is going to mean just IT then is it? I can see a need for more care staff, a huge demand for mental health support, not to mention the shocking levels of literacy and numeracy generally. I sincerely hope they will be covered too. Not everyone can be a coder.
I haven't seen the announcement, but i doubt they are only about IT. My point was it has become a standard term there to refer to intensive period of (re)training, with a fair amount of success*. I presume the government have just latched on to that buzzword / idea for a wide range of sectors.
* There are questions about this, but that is outside the scope.
I'm afraid Philip you showed your lack of honesty in your objectivity when you had spent several months attacking Labour's economic policies from 2001 onwards as overspending and then did a complete U-turn as soon as Johnson started doing the same thing
Sorry that is bovine manure.
I opposed Brown increasing the deficit 2001 onwards before the recession. I have never attacked Brown for the deficit increasing during the recession. I attacked Brown for what he did 2001-2007, not for what he did 2007-08.
Unless you think there is no recession or economic crisis the response this year is not the same thing as 2001.
Not to the best of my knowledge...
Come on be fair. Even you in your claim made clear my objection was what he had done from 2001 onwards.
The issue was 2001 to 2007 for me, not 2007 to 2008. Spending during a crisis is a necessity, there are some automatic stabilisers precisely for that reason. That is why destroying the budget before the crash like Brown did from 2001 onwards is so utterly unforgiveable, because it leaves you nowhere to go when the next inevitable crisis hits.
People act like Brown would have been fine were it not for the Financial Crisis. My point is, was and always has been that recessions happen. If it wasn't the Financial Crisis it would have been something else. Something eventually happens. You can not abolish busts.
Brown's issue was he hubristically claimed he had abolished busts and so spent accordingly.
Usual mixture of Brownaphobic abuse facilitated by ladybird economics. You talk as if there is some precisely predictable up and down "cycle" whereby one can see a downturn on the horizon and start squirreling away money to use when it hits. The truth is there is nothing predictable about the macro economy apart from there will be ups and there will be downs and there will be flats. Annual growth can go up up down flat up down flat. Or it might go up down up down flat up down up up up and away in my beautiful balloon. Or then again possibly flat flat up down up down flat down down deeper and down. Etc. The point is, we are always before a crash and we are always before a boom. We are always after both of these things too. The shape of the curve can be predicted with great accuracy, don't get me wrong, but only in retrospect.
Everyone knew we were in a boom. Overheating was a word in frequent usage.
Then Ed Balls announced they had abolished boom and bust.
And the Guardian started running angry articles claiming that anyone who questioned the exploding derivatives market was talking the country down.
We had all the signs
- Someone high in government finance announces that this boom will go on forever - Any idiot could make money in the market - People were denouncing the naysayers.
The relational move at that point was a switch from CDO to gold.
I have to come out and go back in often 3 or 4 times before eventually I get PB.
How the hell is that happening? How do I stop it?
Cheers kjh
Put an Ad blocker on your phone.
Thank you. Is that all this is? I don't mind ads. This however prevents me getting to PB. It is very intrusive. I have never seen it before and don't get it with any other web site.
Before I installed an ad blocker on my phone, I kept getting pop-ups saying I had "won" a mobile phone. Some sites are aware of ad blockers e.g. Proboards which will tell you in effect "we rely on ads for our income, please bear this in mind" but you can skip past it.
What we really need is some Sunak v. Starmer head to head polling.
Sunak is a sexy bitch. Starmer is not.
That kind of thing...?
Have you seen Sunak’s ears? They’re weird. And he’s short. Plus for someone so rich why can’t he find trousers long enough for his legs? He looks as if he’s wearing someone else’s school uniform.
Sexy? You must be joking.
I mean he’s better than Johnson or Gove (shudders) but I’d rather curl up with a good book than any of them.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Don't get me wrong I am not simply hiding at home. We go out to lunch a few times week (well spaced restaurant with staff in masks), travelled to France (tunnel, own car, villa with us as sole occupants), meet friends and family etc etc.
I simply assess our own risk and avoid situations where it is impossible to avoid those ignoring the basic rules.. Mask wearing has been helpful because it helps highlight the numpties who are on public transport or in shops without one and makes it easy to give them a wide berth.
You final paragraph highlights the issue with masks. People think it is safe to go near people wearing masks.
No it doesn't. I still maintain a 2 metre distance from everyone. I just keep a 10 metre distance from any idiot in a shop without a mask
The policy is to reduce the number of people you meet to reduce transmission.
If that is indeed the policy, why has no Government spokeperson been able to articulate that today?
Because they are being asked about all the various loopholes the journalists have thought up in a way to get a gotcha moment, which has happened regularly throughout all of this. Don't you think there would be less confusion if they had instead focused on what the policy objective actually is?
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Don't get me wrong I am not simply hiding at home. We go out to lunch a few times week (well spaced restaurant with staff in masks), travelled to France (tunnel, own car, villa with us as sole occupants), meet friends and family etc etc.
I simply assess our own risk and avoid situations where it is impossible to avoid those ignoring the basic rules.. Mask wearing has been helpful because it helps highlight the numpties who are on public transport or in shops without one and makes it easy to give them a wide berth.
You final paragraph highlights the issue with masks. People think it is safe to go near people wearing masks.
No it doesn't. I still maintain a 2 metre distance from everyone. I just keep a 10 metre distance from any idiot in a shop without a mask
I said people, watch them in supermarkets, social distancing is a distant memory.
The policy is to reduce the number of people you meet to reduce transmission.
If that is indeed the policy, why has no Government spokeperson been able to articulate that today?
Because they are being asked about all the various loopholes the journalists have thought up in a way to get a gotcha moment, which has happened regularly throughout all of this. Don't you think there would be less confusion if they had instead focused on what the policy objective actually is?
That would require the journalists to actually give a shit about the public health objectives.
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Point 2 the foundation of agile development, something the government seriously struggles with. I'd rather ship a working product and improve it to the point of near perfection over the following few weeks than have nothing and try and ship a perfect product that may need years in development.
As it stands, we might well end up ordering someone else's solution anyway, but several months later.
And to make it worse, an imperfect test is already of great utility now.
Yes, I think having a very high volume of rapid tests means double checking false negatives with a second test very easy.
Because they are being asked about all the various loopholes the journalists have thought up in a way to get a gotcha moment, which has happened regularly throughout all of this. Don't you think there would be less confusion if they had instead focused on what the policy objective actually is?
Except that's not true.
The policy is to reduce contact, but the restrictions have to be legally enforceable.
It is entirely legitimate to ask which activities are legal, and which are not.
Thinking about why those politicians who the public consider to have personality (Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, Boris) beat those who they don't (Foot, Brown, Miliband, Howard, Starmer) even when the latter lead on more "important" attributes...
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Elections campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
Though not always eg Attlee beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950 and Heath beat Wilson in 1970 and Major beat Kinnock in 1992 and May beat Corbyn (just) in 2017 and all were duller than their opponents
May threw away a humongous lead from campaign start to Election day, in part because of her poor personality ratings. It was really a win for Corbyn. I think personality is more important now than it was in the distant past, when politicians were less media savvy
May still won 55 seats more than Corbyn did in 2017.
TV was also well under way in both 1970 and 1992 but Heath and Major still won, what connected them and May was they were able to present themselves as more centrist and fiscally competent than their opponents despite their dullness. The equally dull John Howard won 4 elections in Australia again by presenting himself as fiscally competent, same with the very dull Angela Merkel in Germany.
So yes charisma does normally win but not always if the charismatic leader is less centrist than their opponent and not trusted on the economy or if the dull leader is leading his party after a long period out of power and at a time when there was a mood for change as was the case for Attlee in 1945 and for Hollande in France in 2012 when he beat Sarkozy and maybe for Starmer in 2024
You make a very good point about Angela Merkel. She's hardly a laugh a minute, but has been in power for 15 years.
Maybe German voters value competence, consistency and integrity more than we do.
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Point 2 the foundation of agile development, something the government seriously struggles with. I'd rather ship a working product and improve it to the point of near perfection over the following few weeks than have nothing and try and ship a perfect product that may need years in development.
As it stands, we might well end up ordering someone else's solution anyway, but several months later.
And to make it worse, an imperfect test is already of great utility now.
Mine for a while has been we hunker this out - law or guidance, I don't really care about that aspect, think it's overweighted - until a vaccine is rolled out next Summer. And then we can hopefully get back to life as more or less normal albeit with a different looking and screwed for a while economy and public finances.
Is that overly optimistic do you think? Is there a good chance a vaccine is NOT the answer and we are thus FUBB for a long time?
Because they are being asked about all the various loopholes the journalists have thought up in a way to get a gotcha moment, which has happened regularly throughout all of this. Don't you think there would be less confusion if they had instead focused on what the policy objective actually is?
Except that's not true.
The policy is to reduce contact, but the restrictions have to be legally enforceable.
It is entirely legitimate to ask which activities are legal, and which are not.
And the Government is unable to answer.
They haven't got a fucking clue.
Except as you say it is written down in the legislation. Just because a minister hasn't read every single word of those regulations and can't answer on the spot about a contrived scenario dreamt up by an interviewer doesn't mean it isn't written explicitly. If I was being interviewed, I would refer them to the guidance as I simply didn't know, but for some reason that's not viewed too favourably.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Don't get me wrong I am not simply hiding at home. We go out to lunch a few times week (well spaced restaurant with staff in masks), travelled to France (tunnel, own car, villa with us as sole occupants), meet friends and family etc etc.
I simply assess our own risk and avoid situations where it is impossible to avoid those ignoring the basic rules.. Mask wearing has been helpful because it helps highlight the numpties who are on public transport or in shops without one and makes it easy to give them a wide berth.
You final paragraph highlights the issue with masks. People think it is safe to go near people wearing masks.
Not you again
It must be annoying that all I predicted would happen in July has happened
Everything that has happened in July happened because of idiots like you not because of most of the majority of us that wore masks and stuck to the rules. We all saw the pictures of crowds in the pubs, at the raves and on the on the beach taking no notice of the regulations. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that?
Dom's "no comms fuckups" command centre, working a treat...
What is this obsession with finding loopholes. The whole point of the policy is to reduce the number of times you meet other people. How hard is that to understand?
Well the media still can't get the basic facts about cases and deaths right after 6 months....
Without a detailed press release detailing exactly what to write, writing a story would involve
- finding the hidden, secret information - adding some of those terrible number things to other number things. They didn't go into journalism to understand science. That is for the geeks - like that stupid guy on the science desk. - they might even have to multiply two of the number things.
To give a simple example of not following the facts
- There is a problem with people providing wrong phone numbers when apply for/getting testing - When filling out online forms, it is standard when important, these days, to check the phone numbers. This is done by sending a text with a code to mobiles, or an automated call to non-text-message numbers (land lines mostly). - This kind of verification is available of the shelf - you buy it as a service from one of several companies. Software that plugs into the software you are writing. - verification was in the original specification for the testing setup - both at the sites and online. - It was removed, and so not implemented, from the specification - Why?
What we really need is some Sunak v. Starmer head to head polling.
Sunak is a sexy bitch. Starmer is not.
That kind of thing...?
Have you seen Sunak’s ears? They’re weird. And he’s short. Plus for someone so rich why can’t he find trousers long enough for his legs? He looks as if he’s wearing someone else’s school uniform.
Sexy? You must be joking.
I mean he’s better than Johnson or Gove (shudders) but I’d rather curl up with a good book than any of them.
Well you fancy Monty Don so I could have predicted that Rishi would not float your fleet. Have there ever been two guys who look less alike than Rishi Sunak and Monty Don? I don't think so. Not even Hall & Oates.
This NE lockdown. Apparently whilst its illegal to meet your friends in your own garden, its legal to meet them in a pub beer garden. Just make sure that if its a pub where you have to pass through the building to get to the beer garden that you don't pass through together, as that's illegal.
This NE lockdown. Apparently whilst its illegal to meet your friends in your own garden, its legal to meet them in a pub beer garden. Just make sure that if its a pub where you have to pass through the building to get to the beer garden that you don't pass through together, as that's illegal.
Simple common sense guidance.
Same issue there's been all year, there will always be edge cases in any restrictions. The alternative is to have no restrictions at all, or a total and complete lockdown, any shade of grey will always have a "but what about ..."
FFS....head, desk, thud, thud...it is repeating exactly the same mistake as emptying hospitals out.
Bloody 3rd rate management of a 3rd rate poly.
It's not at all the same. Young, fit students going back to young fit parents.
The parents of many students are over 50 and quite a few have parents over 60.
When I went to uni my dad had been retired for 4 years and that was in the 80's when parent age was considerably younger than it is now.
RISK ASSESSMENT!!!!!
Whatever happened to personal responsibility. If your parents are in a high risk group, would you risk going back to see them?
Some people would, some wouldn't - that's human nature. If you're trying to control a pandemic you can't rely on everyone behaving the same way without clear guidance. You'll be lucky if they do even if you ARE clear.
What we really need is some Sunak v. Starmer head to head polling.
Sunak is a sexy bitch. Starmer is not.
That kind of thing...?
Have you seen Sunak’s ears? They’re weird. And he’s short. Plus for someone so rich why can’t he find trousers long enough for his legs? He looks as if he’s wearing someone else’s school uniform....
I can't speak to the sexiness or otherwise, but the short trouser legs seem to be an Asian style. Watch Korean dramas and you'll see exactly the same thing - and the Koreans are certainly fashion conscious.
Dom's "no comms fuckups" command centre, working a treat...
What is this obsession with finding loopholes. The whole point of the policy is to reduce the number of times you meet other people. How hard is that to understand?
It's not an obsession with finding loopholes. It's a matter of government and ministers passing laws they don't understand while threatening to impose fines on ordinary people who are not as smart as ministers and may be doing their best. My daughter has a baby due next month; from that moment her family is 5 when it is now 4 so under the law it becomes a crime for two grandparents to visit the family to see the new baby. What really is the difference which makes the present situation OK and next month it's a crime, when it would not be a crime to take the baby and family to the pub and sit at adjacent tables?
Person Woman Man Camera TV at 20/1 must be value. I can see Biden mocking Trump with it. "Tell me Donald. Who suggested you take that dementia test and why? Can you remember?"
Couple of points on the back of yesterday's news that the WHO and the US are ordering up rapid antigen tests for immediate use, while we're still chuntering about a $100bn 'moonshot'.
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now. It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds. It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Point 2 the foundation of agile development, something the government seriously struggles with. I'd rather ship a working product and improve it to the point of near perfection over the following few weeks than have nothing and try and ship a perfect product that may need years in development.
As it stands, we might well end up ordering someone else's solution anyway, but several months later.
And to make it worse, an imperfect test is already of great utility now.
Mine for a while has been we hunker this out - law or guidance, I don't really care about that aspect, think it's overweighted - until a vaccine is rolled out next Summer. And then we can hopefully get back to life as more or less normal albeit with a different looking and screwed for a while economy and public finances.
Is that overly optimistic do you think? Is there a good chance a vaccine is NOT the answer and we are thus FUBB for a long time?
Well, a vaccine that is 50% effective seems quite probable, according to the trials so far.
That would kick the R number, hard.
The big questions are
- When is it first available? - How long will it take to make enough for everyone?
From what is happening with the Flu vaccine - where we regularly give 1/3rd of the population a vaccine over a couple of months - the limitation on rollout seems to be the vaccine, rather than the delivery. Boots et al have run out of vaccine long before maxing out the capacity to give people a jab.
Comments
Covid Marshals?
That kind of thing...?
Law and Order at 4/9
China Virus at 8/11
Hardworking Americans at 2/1
The site would be poorer without him and I see no advantage in making his participation here more difficult. I felt the same about Tim back in the day who could be wickedly funny.
Our time cruising was so much about the destinations than anything to do with the entertainment and dining to be honest
I have no idea what your family circumstances are but you are the equivalent of people who say "no clients no problems" when faced with business challenges.
You cannot lock up students, some of whom are vulnerable (or will be after their newly-acquired tequila habit) and forbid them from seeing their parents.
Well of course you would but that's no kind of a society to live in.
The issue was 2001 to 2007 for me, not 2007 to 2008. Spending during a crisis is a necessity, there are some automatic stabilisers precisely for that reason. That is why destroying the budget before the crash like Brown did from 2001 onwards is so utterly unforgiveable, because it leaves you nowhere to go when the next inevitable crisis hits.
People act like Brown would have been fine were it not for the Financial Crisis. My point is, was and always has been that recessions happen. If it wasn't the Financial Crisis it would have been something else. Something eventually happens. You can not abolish busts.
Brown's issue was he hubristically claimed he had abolished busts and so spent accordingly.
See point 8: “Consider converting grants/bounce back loans into compensation for closed businesses, perhaps making it conditional on being used – at least in part – to create new ones/learn new skills/retrain.”
So not bankruptcy and unemployment but compensation allowing new businesses to arise.
No!
The former polys should return to being polytechnics. In the 80's the polys were getting the reputation of being so called second rate univertities. What was the "solution" offered by the Major government in the 90's? They turned the so called second rate universiteis into actual second rate universities. They were supposed to suddenly compete with the universities and apply for research grants from the same research councils and so on. That was a disaster, as they didn't stand a chance competing with the classical unis.
Universities are primarily resarch institutions that also teach students the theory underlying their reseach. The "old" British universities are great at that.
The aim of the polytechnics was to teach students the practical aspects of a subject to a thorough level, with enough theory, that they can understand the implementation. As the name suggests this was often in a science or engineering field, but other practical degree programmes can also be taught at polytechnics. In terms of entering the work place a poly student graduate be better suited to the job on day one, but a uni graduate ought to be more flexible in adapting to a new job.
I am proud to say that here in Germany the distiction between unis and poly is still strong, and works very well. The "poly" where I work has many excellent practical degree programmes and the graduates are very well suited to the job market.
A few very highly paid jobs like commercial barristers for example are effectively restricted to Oxbridge graduates
Credit to you for acknowledging that.
Try - just try for once - to understand the difference between laws which apply to all and a law which allows the rulers to be unconstrained by any laws at all ie to put them above the law. At that point we have a lawless society because no-one else can rely on the law because the government has given itself the power simply to ignore any law at all and has sought to give itself the power to stop any challenge to this.
Each of us - including you - will have lost the protection of the law because we can no longer rely on it if the government decides to ignore it.
When I went to uni my dad had been retired for 4 years and that was in the 80's when parent age was considerably younger than it is now.
No one's saying carry on as normal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
And although I am in reasonably good health for now and within the recommended BMI range, I sadly cannot say that for many of my peers.
The issue of what arises if the controversial sections of the bill were put into effect will be decided by the Supreme Court after a lengthy and thoughtful process in which top lawyers will argue two or maybe more than two different answers, each with a strong and reasoned case backing it.
That alone won't end the matter because it will not prevent parliament legislating or the SC continuing to pronounce.
No-one knows what happens if the SC decides that (for example) the 'Legalising of Torture of Children for Fun Act 2021' is to be struck down as unlawful, and no-one knows what happens if the government decides to disobey a SC ruling. And it is best not to find out. It is best not to know whether the court is supreme over parliament or vice versa because it is important but not a knowable item.
In the mid term polls the public are telling politicans whether they consider them to be doing a good job. Incumbents tend to be blamed for things going badly, rightly or wrongly, and LotOs have a free hit as they can aftertime and criticise, so they lead on various things. When the Election campaigns start, however, leaders have to become salesmen for their manifestos, and maybe that is why the less charismatic types struggle to turn their earnest/popular policies into election winning formulas. Maybe it is why Tories do better than Labour too; in a relative way they are selling optimism vs less glamorous pragmatism, the chance to get rich vs the chance for everyone to be equally average - it is an easier sell
(by the way, Thatcher didn't lead Kinnock on personality always, in the manner that Cameron and Boris do their opposition, but when it came to campaign time she went miles clear)
BBC News - Tim Davie: BBC boss 'prepared to fire stars who break impartiality rules'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54263754
TV was also well under way in both 1970 and 1992 but Heath and Major still won, what connected them and May was they were able to present themselves as more centrist and fiscally competent than their opponents despite their dullness. The equally dull John Howard won 4 elections in Australia again by presenting himself as fiscally competent, same with the very dull Angela Merkel in Germany.
So yes charisma does normally win but not always if the charismatic leader is less centrist than their opponent and not trusted on the economy or if the dull leader is leading his party after a long period out of power and at a time when there was a mood for change as was the case for Attlee in 1945 and for Hollande in France in 2012 when he beat Sarkozy and maybe for Starmer in 2024
1. Any cheap, universally available, rapid test which is superior to diagnosis by apparent symptoms (which this emphatically is) would be useful now.
It would, for example, cut by an order of magnitude at least all those parents seeking PCR tests for their kids with colds.
It would also help isolate immediately those that are infected, rather than waiting a day/many days.
2. (& this is a general point) Continuous improvement almost always beats waiting for perfection.
Joy.
Regulate uber and force them to improve is a much better outcome for users of taxis (ride shares!) than a ban.
Dom's "no comms fuckups" command centre, working a treat...
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1310898859795771394
So this raises another question.
"Skills employers value" is going to mean just IT then is it?
I can see a need for more care staff,
a huge demand for mental health support, not to mention the shocking levels of literacy and numeracy generally.
I sincerely hope they will be covered too.
Not everyone can be a coder.
It's a straightforward question.
What is the policy?
And the people who dreamt it up don't know the answer.
Definitely one of my top ten obits.
And to make it worse, an imperfect test is already of great utility now.
* There are questions about this, but that is outside the scope.
Then Ed Balls announced they had abolished boom and bust.
And the Guardian started running angry articles claiming that anyone who questioned the exploding derivatives market was talking the country down.
We had all the signs
- Someone high in government finance announces that this boom will go on forever
- Any idiot could make money in the market
- People were denouncing the naysayers.
The relational move at that point was a switch from CDO to gold.
Some sites are aware of ad blockers e.g. Proboards which will tell you in effect "we rely on ads for our income, please bear this in mind" but you can skip past it.
Sexy? You must be joking.
I mean he’s better than Johnson or Gove (shudders) but I’d rather curl up with a good book than any of them.
Some people!
Presumably this is to deal with the menace of singing septets.
Sweden?
The policy is to reduce contact, but the restrictions have to be legally enforceable.
It is entirely legitimate to ask which activities are legal, and which are not.
And the Government is unable to answer.
They haven't got a fucking clue.
Maybe German voters value competence, consistency and integrity more than we do.
What is your vaccine prognosis please?
Mine for a while has been we hunker this out - law or guidance, I don't really care about that aspect, think it's overweighted - until a vaccine is rolled out next Summer. And then we can hopefully get back to life as more or less normal albeit with a different looking and screwed for a while economy and public finances.
Is that overly optimistic do you think? Is there a good chance a vaccine is NOT the answer and we are thus FUBB for a long time?
Without a detailed press release detailing exactly what to write, writing a story would involve
- finding the hidden, secret information
- adding some of those terrible number things to other number things. They didn't go into journalism to understand science. That is for the geeks - like that stupid guy on the science desk.
- they might even have to multiply two of the number things.
To give a simple example of not following the facts
- There is a problem with people providing wrong phone numbers when apply for/getting testing
- When filling out online forms, it is standard when important, these days, to check the phone numbers. This is done by sending a text with a code to mobiles, or an automated call to non-text-message numbers (land lines mostly).
- This kind of verification is available of the shelf - you buy it as a service from one of several companies. Software that plugs into the software you are writing.
- verification was in the original specification for the testing setup - both at the sites and online.
- It was removed, and so not implemented, from the specification
- Why?
Simple common sense guidance.
Have I got that right?
Bonkers laws invite bonkers reactions.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1310906012292075521
I can see Biden mocking Trump with it. "Tell me Donald. Who suggested you take that dementia test and why? Can you remember?"
That would kick the R number, hard.
The big questions are
- When is it first available?
- How long will it take to make enough for everyone?
From what is happening with the Flu vaccine - where we regularly give 1/3rd of the population a vaccine over a couple of months - the limitation on rollout seems to be the vaccine, rather than the delivery. Boots et al have run out of vaccine long before maxing out the capacity to give people a jab.