Interesting that Elmbridge has been singed out, rather than simply the whole of Surrey.
That's JohnO's parish, clearly the government are punishing Elmbridge because JohnO and I are friends.
Elmbridge has the highest house prices of any district outside London I believe (and an average house price even above the London average), clearly a lot of wealthy London commuters live there and some have started going back to the office and brought cases back on the tube
Elmbridge is the Beverly Hills of the UK, it really is
I used to live there in the 60s and 70s along with George Harrison of the Beatles (His then wife Pattie Boyd once asked my mother in the local grocers if she could recommend somewhere for Afternoon Tea), Adam Faith (He lived two roads away. He once did the raffle for the local fete. Nice chap but short) and two members of Pan's People, who lived in the same road (Their rent was paid by an elderly admirer. There was a lot of speculation about which one he was bonking or was it both of them and if so, was it at the same time?).
Happy memories.
Eric Clapton was brought up in nearby Ripley and would return from time to time to visit an aunt. The story goes that the local vicar called one day and Eric answered the door and after some polite conversation the vicar remarked on a guitar standing in the hallway and asked if Eric could play. When Clapton indicated that he did the vicar asked if he might come along to church and play something for the congregation. This so amused Clapton that he agreed. I'm not sure how many recognised him but I am sure they enjoyed the occasion.
A local pub, the Onslow Arms in Clandon, is the only one I have ever visited with its own helicopter pad. It was reputedly for Clapton and his showbiz friends, but sadly I never saw one land. Pretty decent pub though.
I've been to the Onslow Arms but not by helicopter.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Absolutely.
So f**k the French, leave it.
The mask slips.
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
No mask slipping I'm entirely serious.
The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
'imperiling the safety of others. The refrain of the tyrant echoes down the centuries.
You must know of some pretty dickless tyrants. "I'm going to kill you because I can" is more mainstream.
Tyrants are the greatest euphemists. You only have to look at their speeches to see that. The greater the evil, the more euphemistic the term. That's why its so inordinately difficult to find actual evidence of anybody actually mandating the holocaust. It was never specifically referred to as that. Jews were 'evacuated'. Just about the most euphemistic term for genocide you will ever hear.
The problem the Democrats have with Taiwan is that some in the party, in the past, have advocated pretty much selling out Taiwan for better relations with mainland China.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Let me see if I understand you -
- You are diagnosed with COVID19 - Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family? - As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
wut?
Well, maybe they could fend for themselves food-wise for a couple of weeks, but no, I certainly would not prefer an enforced stay in a hotel room to the comfort of my own home (especially if I wasn't feeling well)! Is that unusual? Don't most people like living in their own houses?
If you cook food for them, while COVID19 positive, it would greatly increase the probability that you give your family COVID19.
For what it is worth - I planned, in the event of being diagnosed, to do absolutely everything possible *not* to be at home for my isolation period.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Let me see if I understand you -
- You are diagnosed with COVID19 - Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family? - As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
wut?
Well, maybe they could fend for themselves food-wise for a couple of weeks, but no, I certainly would not prefer an enforced stay in a hotel room to the comfort of my own home (especially if I wasn't feeling well)! Is that unusual? Don't most people like living in their own houses?
If you cook food for them, while COVID19 positive, it would greatly increase the probability that you give your family COVID19.
For what it is worth - I planned, in the event of being diagnosed, to do absolutely everything possible *not* to be at home for my isolation period.
They would almost certainly have it anyway by the time I was diagnosed.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Of all the Covid-19 public health policies, ensuring strict quarantine is the biggest no-brainer. Set against arguments about whether to close schools, businesses, social events or let the epidemic rip. I don't think quarantine will of itself remove the need for other interventions, but every intervention that is not required because you have better TT&I has to be a win!
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Let me see if I understand you -
- You are diagnosed with COVID19 - Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family? - As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
wut?
Well, maybe they could fend for themselves food-wise for a couple of weeks, but no, I certainly would not prefer an enforced stay in a hotel room to the comfort of my own home (especially if I wasn't feeling well)! Is that unusual? Don't most people like living in their own houses?
If you cook food for them, while COVID19 positive, it would greatly increase the probability that you give your family COVID19.
For what it is worth - I planned, in the event of being diagnosed, to do absolutely everything possible *not* to be at home for my isolation period.
They would almost certainly have it anyway by the time I was diagnosed.
They wouldnt but lots of people do think like that.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Of all the Covid-19 public health policies, ensuring strict quarantine is the biggest no-brainer. Set against arguments about whether to close schools, businesses, social events or let the epidemic rip. I don't think quarantine will of itself remove the need for other interventions, but every intervention that is not required because you have better TT&I has to be a win!
No, I quite understand and largely agree with your points! It was TOPPING's post that I was struggling to decipher.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
That some of the extreme measures promoted by well-to-do PB contributors bear no relation to the real life of millions of people in the UK.
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Absolutely.
So f**k the French, leave it.
The mask slips.
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
No mask slipping I'm entirely serious.
The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
You're being emotionally incontinent and also too fearful. There WILL be a deal. It's a certainty. Said it a thousand times so once more won't hurt. The deal will continue close alignment and will involve compromise on both sides to get it done. We are smaller and need it most so we will compromise more than they do.
All bar ardent Johnson fans should drop the speculation as regards No Deal since it plays for him. It will generate a sense of relief when the deal is announced. There should be NO sense of relief since a deal is certain (and always has been). The focus should be on the details of the deal and the balance of gain/loss.
The key questions -
How bad in the round will it be for us? Terrible or just very very bad? Or even just plain vanilla pretty bad? The latter would be a triumph that Johnson could rightly trumpet.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
Of course I am simplifying. But if there is a deal, it will be to give the UK what it wants on fish, and the EU on state aid and alignment, because only 2 of those 3 things really matter, yet fish matters the most to Brexiteer voters.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
Fishing is more important to France (and Spain) than it is to us. Macron's position is (apparently): if there's no movement on fish it's no-deal. But if that's what transpires then French fishermen are even worse off. French fisherfolk won't thank him for that.
Interesting that Elmbridge has been singed out, rather than simply the whole of Surrey.
That's JohnO's parish, clearly the government are punishing Elmbridge because JohnO and I are friends.
Elmbridge has the highest house prices of any district outside London I believe (and an average house price even above the London average), clearly a lot of wealthy London commuters live there and some have started going back to the office and brought cases back on the tube
Elmbridge is the Beverly Hills of the UK, it really is
I used to live there in the 60s and 70s along with George Harrison of the Beatles (His then wife Pattie Boyd once asked my mother in the local grocers if she could recommend somewhere for Afternoon Tea), Adam Faith (He lived two roads away. He once did the raffle for the local fete. Nice chap but short) and two members of Pan's People, who lived in the same road (Their rent was paid by an elderly admirer. There was a lot of speculation about which one he was bonking or was it both of them and if so, was it at the same time?).
Happy memories.
Eric Clapton was brought up in nearby Ripley and would return from time to time to visit an aunt. The story goes that the local vicar called one day and Eric answered the door and after some polite conversation the vicar remarked on a guitar standing in the hallway and asked if Eric could play. When Clapton indicated that he did the vicar asked if he might come along to church and play something for the congregation. This so amused Clapton that he agreed. I'm not sure how many recognised him but I am sure they enjoyed the occasion.
A local pub, the Onslow Arms in Clandon, is the only one I have ever visited with its own helicopter pad. It was reputedly for Clapton and his showbiz friends, but sadly I never saw one land. Pretty decent pub though.
I've been to the Onslow Arms but not by helicopter.
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Absolutely.
So f**k the French, leave it.
The mask slips.
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
No mask slipping I'm entirely serious.
The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
Trouble is that I can imagine Phillipe posting on parispolitiques.fr saying much the same thing about the UK's attitude.
So it comes down to realpolitik, as you've said before, I think. And there, both you and Phillipe have judged that your hand of cards is stronger. Unfortunately (because this isn't a good way to resolve it), we're about to see.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
Brexit is negative sum.
Incidentally, what is the balance of trade on fish?
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
Brexit is negative sum.
Incidentally, what is the balance of trade on fish?
Especially when the likes of the Scottish inshore fishermen have their export trade completely wrecked.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
Of course I am simplifying. But if there is a deal, it will be to give the UK what it wants on fish, and the EU on state aid and alignment, because only 2 of those 3 things really matter, yet fish matters the most to Brexiteer voters.
We will see.
If the UK gives in to the EU on state aid and alignment then I will oppose the deal, but from the sound of it actually a compromise is likely to be agreeable to both parties on that one which will be much closer to what we asked for at the start than they did.
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Just quarantine everyone and give them food. So that means there is a functioning virus food distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Of all the Covid-19 public health policies, ensuring strict quarantine is the biggest no-brainer. Set against arguments about whether to close schools, businesses, social events or let the epidemic rip. I don't think quarantine will of itself remove the need for other interventions, but every intervention that is not required because you have better TT&I has to be a win!
No, I quite understand and largely agree with your points! It was TOPPING's post that I was struggling to decipher.
Oh! You were talking about quarantine! Apologies I thought you meant as a modus vivendi. Oh yes - quarantine I agree.
(Note to self: don't just pop in to PB and respond to the first post I skim read).
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Absolutely.
So f**k the French, leave it.
The mask slips.
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
No mask slipping I'm entirely serious.
The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
Trouble is that I can imagine Phillipe posting on parispolitiques.fr saying much the same thing about the UK's attitude.
So it comes down to realpolitik, as you've said before, I think. And there, both you and Phillipe have judged that your hand of cards is stronger. Unfortunately (because this isn't a good way to resolve it), we're about to see.
Absolutely. So if there's no compromise then we walk away, the French fishing industry go bust, then we can start talking again after that's happened.
An oxygen-free Everest kill zone where its impossible to do business, but where there is also no state support.
You can turn a phrase sometimes so hats off for that.
But your alternative plan - pop into the Tardis, back a year, find the bat and kill it and bury its ashes in a lead casket at the bottom of the Pacific - is simply not feasible even with today's technology.
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Absolutely.
So f**k the French, leave it.
The mask slips.
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
No mask slipping I'm entirely serious.
The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
Trouble is that I can imagine Phillipe posting on parispolitiques.fr saying much the same thing about the UK's attitude.
So it comes down to realpolitik, as you've said before, I think. And there, both you and Phillipe have judged that your hand of cards is stronger. Unfortunately (because this isn't a good way to resolve it), we're about to see.
Absolutely. So if there's no compromise then we walk away, the French fishing industry go bust, then we can start talking again after that's happened.
Phillipe a dit:
When ze British carmakers 'ave gone bust and ze bankers 'ave moved to Paris and Francfort, and ze fisherman 'ave nobody to sell their shellfish to, then we will talk.
(ETA apologies to any actual French speakers reading this.)
Smithson Jnr has been touting a theory that Virginia will be one of Trump's better results on the nite. When he comes in, tell him the Disciplinary Committee requires his attendance.
It is setting up the scene so that when the UK "win" on fish (0.1% of the economy) and the EU just win on everything else (99.9% of the economy), Boris can claim a win which will his cheerleaders will lap up.
That isn't how it works.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
This one involves a negative total sum because it is introducing friction and barriers where there was none. This is the Brexit Cost (opposite of dividend) and it will be split between us and the EU. If we can get a 50/50 that would imo be not too shabby.
Interesting that Elmbridge has been singed out, rather than simply the whole of Surrey.
That's JohnO's parish, clearly the government are punishing Elmbridge because JohnO and I are friends.
Elmbridge has the highest house prices of any district outside London I believe (and an average house price even above the London average), clearly a lot of wealthy London commuters live there and some have started going back to the office and brought cases back on the tube
Elmbridge is the Beverly Hills of the UK, it really is
I used to live there in the 60s and 70s along with George Harrison of the Beatles (His then wife Pattie Boyd once asked my mother in the local grocers if she could recommend somewhere for Afternoon Tea), Adam Faith (He lived two roads away. He once did the raffle for the local fete. Nice chap but short) and two members of Pan's People, who lived in the same road (Their rent was paid by an elderly admirer. There was a lot of speculation about which one he was bonking or was it both of them and if so, was it at the same time?).
Happy memories.
Eric Clapton was brought up in nearby Ripley and would return from time to time to visit an aunt. The story goes that the local vicar called one day and Eric answered the door and after some polite conversation the vicar remarked on a guitar standing in the hallway and asked if Eric could play. When Clapton indicated that he did the vicar asked if he might come along to church and play something for the congregation. This so amused Clapton that he agreed. I'm not sure how many recognised him but I am sure they enjoyed the occasion.
A local pub, the Onslow Arms in Clandon, is the only one I have ever visited with its own helicopter pad. It was reputedly for Clapton and his showbiz friends, but sadly I never saw one land. Pretty decent pub though.
I've been to the Onslow Arms but not by helicopter.
Remember the American dude who flew over to put a hundred grand on the GOP to retain Congress in 2018 with Shadsy?
Wasn't there some evidence of Romney backers driving his price down with the now-defunct exchange Intrade? The result was a clear arbitrage with Betfair. Many here took advantage, I believe.
Radio 4 just had a vox pop with a Biden and Trump US voter and a neutral, and it descended into a shouting match and finally threats of looming civil war from the vocal Trump supporter
Good grief! Was that the 3 siblings they've been following?
Comments
virusfood distribution system in the UK apart from the fact of what type of society are you envisaging with everyone (pls name exceptions) at home receiving food parcels.The French demands are absolutely unreasonable upon a sovereign nation so f**k them we should walk away until they're ready to treat us as sovereign equals. They want our fish? Well stuff them, walk away and they get nothing.
Come a long way. Long way still to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxmklZxqkWM
For what it is worth - I planned, in the event of being diagnosed, to do absolutely everything possible *not* to be at home for my isolation period.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1316728635206914048?s=20
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1316732079133069312
WTO achieves that. Any deal is bonus, but only if we don't compromise those fundamentals.
538 currently seems to think so. 25% chance for the Democrats in Alabama, 21% for the Republicans in Michigan.
I think some irrational exuberance has made its way into the model. Is the tidal wave of ordure heading for the Republicans really that high?
All bar ardent Johnson fans should drop the speculation as regards No Deal since it plays for him. It will generate a sense of relief when the deal is announced. There should be NO sense of relief since a deal is certain (and always has been). The focus should be on the details of the deal and the balance of gain/loss.
The key questions -
How bad in the round will it be for us? Terrible or just very very bad? Or even just plain vanilla pretty bad? The latter would be a triumph that Johnson could rightly trumpet.
An oxygen-free Everest kill zone where its impossible to do business, but where there is also no state support.
Deals aren't zero sum, if they were there'd never be a deal. Deals only work if they are win/win for all parties.
A zero tariff/zero quota deal is a good deal for the EU (since the have a mammoth trade surplus with us) and a good deal for the UK so as long as the EU are prepared to be reasonable there's no economic reason why that shouldn't be agreeable.
So it comes down to realpolitik, as you've said before, I think. And there, both you and Phillipe have judged that your hand of cards is stronger. Unfortunately (because this isn't a good way to resolve it), we're about to see.
Incidentally, what is the balance of trade on fish?
If the UK gives in to the EU on state aid and alignment then I will oppose the deal, but from the sound of it actually a compromise is likely to be agreeable to both parties on that one which will be much closer to what we asked for at the start than they did.
(Note to self: don't just pop in to PB and respond to the first post I skim read).
NEW THREAD
That'd put the cat amongst the pigeons.
But your alternative plan - pop into the Tardis, back a year, find the bat and kill it and bury its ashes in a lead casket at the bottom of the Pacific - is simply not feasible even with today's technology.
20% in Michigan seems fair though g haven't looked at the race in depth. The GOPer did well in a tough race in 2018
When ze British carmakers 'ave gone bust and ze bankers 'ave moved to Paris and Francfort, and ze fisherman 'ave nobody to sell their shellfish to, then we will talk.
(ETA apologies to any actual French speakers reading this.)
Biden 54%
Trump 39%
Roanoke College
9/30 - 12/10
https://twitter.com/simplyzinhle/status/1316742928870633472