WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging
Options
Comments
-
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.3 -
Not moaning no, just discussing politics on a politics website. If the EU are unreasonable then we have ways to respond to that: my preferred choice is to walk away without a deal.Gallowgate said:
Are you moaning again that the the EU are being "unreasonable"?Philip_Thompson said:I wonder if there's anyone who falls for the mad spin that "gravity" means a more onerous LPF is required for the UK considers the same in reverse?
The EU's minimum wage is €1.95 per hour - less than a fifth of the UK's minimum wage. Does "gravity" mean the UK should not sign a trade deal with the EU for as long as we are being undercut on this?
I doubt there's even a single Europhile here who will make that argument despite parroting the spin in reverse. Which is because it is nonsense all of it.
It doesn't matter - it is what it is. Being a "europhile" has nothing to do with it.
Acknowledging that the EU are being unreasonable is the first step to nationally deciding that we should walk away0 -
Breaking: the WP article about the renowned Xmas movie Die Hard is now a featured article candidate0
-
Absolutely. The government should have made it clear that it wont strictly be illegal to gather but that they and their medics strongly urge people not to as it is a real risk.RobD said:
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
As every day passes I am more glad that I took the decision not to have any relatives this year.0 -
It could be in the political interests of both sides to go through a few days/weeks of No Deal before signing the deal that's on the table.OnboardG1 said:
I think it goes further than that. An amicable "no-deal" is now possible thanks to Gove actually being competent when asked to do something technical. If Johnson resists the temptation to Eurobash in the event of no agreement being reached then I think the EU would be willing to a) leave the door open for future talks and b) try to mitigate against the worst disruption come January.Richard_Nabavi said:
A lot depends on whether there is an amicable deal or not, almost irrespective of the formal scope of the agreement. If there is a deal, then our EU friends are likely to be much more helpful in smoothing things along. If not...OnboardG1 said:
I do wonder if there might be a little "paperwork holiday" for January whatever happens just to keep the lorries moving, but the issue is that there will always have to be a point where you impose your rules and that's where the crunch will happen. Because people are lazy and paperwork is hard.Gaussian said:
That could be fudged over with an implementation period of a few months if both sides were so inclined.rpjs said:
People seem to be missing the point that an FTA deal will just determine what, if any, tariffs get applied. All the reimposed bureaucracy at the border is baked in deal or no deal and no-one seems to be remotely ready to deal with it.OnboardG1 said:Real world brexit impact alert (with the foreword that I don't think it will be a cataclysm, more a depressing series of corrosive irritations):
I just got a quote for a new PCB I'm designing. The boards are on a ten day lead time. That should be done before the new year (hopefully). The embuggerance is going to be that my board might not get populated any time soon because the integrated circuits come from Europe. I can live with three weeks delay but that's going to be a nightmare for anyone who makes them en masse. Honestly, I'm less annoyed with the government threatening a no deal exit and more pissed off with them for not at least having the decency to hire a bunch of redundant retail workers to process border documentation and failing to have proper customs facilities ready. The tarriff rates aren't going to be fun but it's the snarl up in the transit that's going to really hurt and that's all on HMG not being ready for an outcome they keep threatening.
However, this is Boris Johnson we're talking about here.0 -
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.2 -
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.3 -
Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.0
-
They even gave us a trial run of the experiment to show how mad it is.IshmaelZ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-patient-tells-doctor-all-22-people-at-her-thanksgiving-dinner-have-symptoms/ar-BB1bLDQf?ocid=uxbndlbingRobD said:
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
0 -
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
1 -
She’ll blame London and put the SNP up another 20 points in the polls, on past form.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
Nationalist Governments can't afford to take unpopular decisions like that - she would only have cancelled Christmas so if given cover by the other home nations, and she'd have probably tried to cancel it 'a bit less' than England because 'Scotland is in a much better place'. It has to be bread and circuses all the way till the goal is achieved.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
More correctly "up to" - staggered return.DavidL said:
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
https://www.gov.scot/news/staggered-return-to-campus-for-university-students/#:~:text=Further COVID testing before restart,coronavirus (COVID-19).
PS sorry -not trying to sound rude.1 -
Mad Dog Matliss waves hullo.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
But there are good reasons for ensuring that the head of the military is civilian. The man he has chosen looks very experienced and competent and would also be the first black man to hold the position but I think its a mistake.0 -
What's a 'JCL' college? Not a term I'm familiar with.TheScreamingEagles said:
He didn't go to one of the proper Cambridge colleges, he went to one of the JCL colleges.Malmesbury said:
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted ofTheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.FrancisUrquhart said:
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which war memorial are you talking about?FrancisUrquhart said:
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.TheScreamingEagles said:
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.FrancisUrquhart said:Edward Colston statue: Four (more) charged with criminal damage
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-55248263
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/seven-months-in-jail-for-kelly-martin-woman-who-twice-urinated-on-war-memorial
https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/03/protester-19-who-tried-to-set-union-flag-alight-on-cenotaph-avoids-jail-13696832
Also, unlike pissy man,
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014643/Black-Lives-Matter-activist-tried-torch-Union-Flag-let-off.html
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was
2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
One that wasn't even a proper college until 1948!0 -
Ah, my mistake - sounds like is usually or typically a civilian.RobD said:
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
0 -
The messaging on this has bordered on criminal to be honest. Someone in Downing Street was briefing the press about "saving xmas" weeks ago and things have just snowballed from there.RobD said:
They even gave us a trial run of the experiment to show how mad it is.IshmaelZ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-patient-tells-doctor-all-22-people-at-her-thanksgiving-dinner-have-symptoms/ar-BB1bLDQf?ocid=uxbndlbingRobD said:
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
1 -
Marshall and Mattis were career generals, but I think most of the others who had military records it was national service of one sort or another.RobD said:
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
0 -
Staggered returns to halls is what students traditionally do at later times than they should anyway, so I don’t see the problem there.Carnyx said:
More correctly "up to" - staggered return.DavidL said:
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
https://www.gov.scot/news/staggered-return-to-campus-for-university-students/#:~:text=Further COVID testing before restart,coronavirus (COVID-19).
PS sorry -not trying to sound rude.1 -
That article says "at least" 6 weeks. My nephew is at Dundee and that what has been indicated to him. All his classes bar one have been online anyway and he has not been able to attend that one for some weeks as he was in quarantine. Its been tough.Carnyx said:
More correctly "up to" - staggered return.DavidL said:
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
https://www.gov.scot/news/staggered-return-to-campus-for-university-students/#:~:text=Further COVID testing before restart,coronavirus (COVID-19).0 -
There is a whacking great Nationalist Government in London, so the logic doesn't quite work.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nationalist Governments can't afford to take unpopular decisions like that - she would only have cancelled Christmas so if given cover by the other home nations, and she'd have probably tried to cancel it 'a bit less' than England because 'Scotland is in a much better place'. It has to be bread and circuses all the way till the goal is achieved.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
Ah, I'd read differently in a newspaper report - thanks.DavidL said:
That article says "at least" 6 weeks. My nephew is at Dundee and that what has been indicated to him. All his classes bar one have been online anyway and he has not been able to attend that one for some weeks as he was in quarantine. Its been tough.Carnyx said:
More correctly "up to" - staggered return.DavidL said:
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
https://www.gov.scot/news/staggered-return-to-campus-for-university-students/#:~:text=Further COVID testing before restart,coronavirus (COVID-19).0 -
I thought the "jolly careful" catchphrase was a good one. Corny but Christmas is always corny. Should be repeated more often until everyone is rolling their eyes at it (but the message has gotten through).rottenborough said:
The messaging on this has bordered on criminal to be honest. Someone in Downing Street was briefing the press about "saving xmas" weeks ago and things have just snowballed from there.RobD said:
They even gave us a trial run of the experiment to show how mad it is.IshmaelZ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-patient-tells-doctor-all-22-people-at-her-thanksgiving-dinner-have-symptoms/ar-BB1bLDQf?ocid=uxbndlbingRobD said:
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
0 -
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.2 -
You need to get a waiver if your service is less than 7 years prior. Mattis was, I think, the first to require this and Biden's choice would be the second. There was a good article in the Atlantic about it I will try to find.ydoethur said:
Marshall and Mattis were career generals, but I think most of the others who had military records it was national service of one sort or another.RobD said:
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
Edit here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/no-job-general/617326/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20201208&silverid-ref=Njk5MTc2ODk0NTgwS00 -
It does work actually - Boris can't cancel Christmas it for very similar reasons - though in his case it's more that his political capital is at an all time low. Nicola's is still quite high.Carnyx said:
There is a whacking great Nationalist Government in London, so the logic doesn't quite work.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nationalist Governments can't afford to take unpopular decisions like that - she would only have cancelled Christmas so if given cover by the other home nations, and she'd have probably tried to cancel it 'a bit less' than England because 'Scotland is in a much better place'. It has to be bread and circuses all the way till the goal is achieved.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
The case from TX has been described as a “press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” by a law professor.MrEd said:
Oh I'd agree with that which is why I think Cruz has got something to do with it (and with his comment he would have presented the PA case to SCOTUS).rcs1000 said:
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!MrEd said:
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.rpjs said:
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.0 -
Whacking great patriotic government in London I think you mean.Carnyx said:
There is a whacking great Nationalist Government in London, so the logic doesn't quite work.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nationalist Governments can't afford to take unpopular decisions like that - she would only have cancelled Christmas so if given cover by the other home nations, and she'd have probably tried to cancel it 'a bit less' than England because 'Scotland is in a much better place'. It has to be bread and circuses all the way till the goal is achieved.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
Ok, I'll let become a proper but JCL college because of Lady Hale.Stuartinromford said:
Oi! We were (and I trust, still are) highly proper. And gave the world Lady Hale, never forget.TheScreamingEagles said:
He didn't go to one of the proper Cambridge colleges, he went to one of the JCL colleges.Malmesbury said:
Ah yes. The chap who demonstrated that a defence that consisted ofTheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, Charlie Gilmour must have been pissed off about that.FrancisUrquhart said:
A teenager who attempted to burn the Union Flag at The Cenotaph during an anti-racism protest in London has today avoided a jail sentence. Judge Christopher Hehir instead today gave him a two-year conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £340 in court costs.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which war memorial are you talking about?FrancisUrquhart said:
But (attempting) to set fire to one, got two individuals basically no punishment at all.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's not so much that, it is what he urinated on that was also an aggravating factor, he received a very lenient sentence he was sentenced to 14 days, IIRC a few years a woman was sentenced to six months for urinating on a war memorial.FrancisUrquhart said:
That's even more ridiculous then, because every normal night of the week, somebody does something exactly the same in every town up and down the country....and hardly like he just whipped it out and was parading about.TheScreamingEagles said:
His sentence was more to do with the fact he got his todger out in a public place.FrancisUrquhart said:Edward Colston statue: Four (more) charged with criminal damage
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-55248263
I notice that all the previous individuals got far less of a punishment than pissy man, who a) handed himself in and b) caused no permanent damage to anything other than his own reputation.
Outraging the public decency has some strict sentencing guidelines.
We would need to take back Australia as a prison colony if we are going to lock up everybody who does that.
Edit - Here's the story, from 2016, and she was sentenced to seven months, not six.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/seven-months-in-jail-for-kelly-martin-woman-who-twice-urinated-on-war-memorial
https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/03/protester-19-who-tried-to-set-union-flag-alight-on-cenotaph-avoids-jail-13696832
Also, unlike pissy man,
Shanice Mahmud, prosecuting, said: 'Demonstrators were showing aggressive behaviour towards police and, as they reached the long side of the Cenotaph, missiles and bottles were being thrown at them.
'The defendant was at the front of the group, and he was being hostile and aggressive. They could see he was aggressive, confrontational, and was swinging his arms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014643/Black-Lives-Matter-activist-tried-torch-Union-Flag-let-off.html
1) A history student at Cambridge claiming he had no idea what the Centoaph was
2) That he wasn't responsible for his action because he had self adminstered a mix of alcohol and illegal drugs.
doesn't result in favourable outcome. Funny that.
One that wasn't even a proper college until 1948!
Not technically in Cambridge, I'll grant you...0 -
Do you think he had the Shagamobile repainted specifically with that photo op in mind??CarlottaVance said:0 -
.
The waiver has been issued twice, once in the 50s and then recently for Mattis.DavidL said:
You need to get a waiver if your service is less than 7 years prior. Mattis was, I think, the first to require this and Biden's choice would be the second. There was a good article in the Atlantic about it I will try to find.ydoethur said:
Marshall and Mattis were career generals, but I think most of the others who had military records it was national service of one sort or another.RobD said:
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
Edit here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/no-job-general/617326/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20201208&silverid-ref=Njk5MTc2ODk0NTgwS00 -
Cancel Christmas.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
Announce a week long bank holiday next year, as a replacement. To be held 1 month after the vaccination rate reaches 90% of the population.
4 -
A nonsensical comparison.rcs1000 said:
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!MrEd said:
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.rpjs said:
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
The message "Black Lives Matter" has intrinsic worth.
The message "Trump Won the Election Really" is ludicrous.
0 -
It is still pretty clear that Mr J was being much happiuer about Christmas running riot than Ms S was. But then he's a short-term thinker.Luckyguy1983 said:
It does work actually - Boris can't cancel Christmas it for very similar reasons - though in his case it's more that his political capital is at an all time low. Nicola's is still quite high.Carnyx said:
There is a whacking great Nationalist Government in London, so the logic doesn't quite work.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nationalist Governments can't afford to take unpopular decisions like that - she would only have cancelled Christmas so if given cover by the other home nations, and she'd have probably tried to cancel it 'a bit less' than England because 'Scotland is in a much better place'. It has to be bread and circuses all the way till the goal is achieved.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
This is a diabolically cynical suggestion but it madly could actually work.
https://twitter.com/JonAskonas/status/1336690583444856834?s=192 -
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
Christmas in the summer like downunder.Malmesbury said:
Cancel Christmas.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
Announce a week long bank holiday next year, as a replacement. To be held 1 month after the vaccination rate reaches 90% of the population.0 -
That’s a reasonable position. I’m hoping more people align with it and Christmas isn’t a disaster.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.2 -
Yule is over-rated. Beltane is much better, and more comfortable here in Scotland😉ydoethur said:
She’ll blame London and put the SNP up another 20 points in the polls, on past form.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:0 -
I’d be keen. Maybe the SG could move the summer bank holidays to actual summer.Philip_Thompson said:
Christmas in the summer like downunder.Malmesbury said:
Cancel Christmas.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
Announce a week long bank holiday next year, as a replacement. To be held 1 month after the vaccination rate reaches 90% of the population.0 -
It’s like Christmas except your slightly strange friend is painted red and running around with their bits out.sarissa said:
Yule is over-rated. Beltane is much better, and more comfortable here in Scotland😉ydoethur said:
She’ll blame London and put the SNP up another 20 points in the polls, on past form.Carnyx said:
I do wonder what will happen if she tries to cancel Christmas. On second thoughts, I do know.Theuniondivvie said:
The seamless transition from 'Sturge was wrong to pursue a different policy from Westminster' to 'Sturge was wrong to pursue the same policy as Westminster' will be a joy to witness.Carnyx said:
Very much under protest for Ms S. I think she will turn out to have been right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster - it was a UK wide decisionScott_xP said:1 -
Time for Parsons to grow upCarlottaVance said:1 -
Which sounds like a fair description. However, other states have joined in, which may (or may not) have an influence. I'd be interested to see what happens if someone like Florida joined.rottenborough said:
The case from TX has been described as a “press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” by a law professor.MrEd said:
Oh I'd agree with that which is why I think Cruz has got something to do with it (and with his comment he would have presented the PA case to SCOTUS).rcs1000 said:
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!MrEd said:
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.rpjs said:
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.0 -
You're right. Marshall in the early 50s so he could oversee the Korean war. I found the piece in the Atlantic quite persuasive, I must say.RobD said:.
The waiver has been issued twice, once in the 50s and then recently for Mattis.DavidL said:
You need to get a waiver if your service is less than 7 years prior. Mattis was, I think, the first to require this and Biden's choice would be the second. There was a good article in the Atlantic about it I will try to find.ydoethur said:
Marshall and Mattis were career generals, but I think most of the others who had military records it was national service of one sort or another.RobD said:
Except for when it has not.rottenborough said:Bit of controversy for Biden. He is planning to put a military man in charge of Defence Dept. It has always been a civilian.
Edit here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/no-job-general/617326/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20201208&silverid-ref=Njk5MTc2ODk0NTgwS00 -
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.0 -
It is understood that chilled meats, sausages, mince and unfrozen prepared meals, which are prohibited and restricted from entering the EU from third countries, will be permitted for a period of time, pending a review by both sides.
And that once a derogation period has elapsed, Northern Ireland supermarkets will have to source such products locally or from the Republic.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1209/1183335-brexit/
And once the derogation lapses, presumably chilled meats, sausages, mince and unfrozen prepared meals,which arewill be prohibited and restricted from entering theEUthe UK from the Republic.......unless if the scheme is running fine its all quietly forgotten about....0 -
I suspect that the plans are pretty flexible at this stage until we see what happens. The reality has been that having an R rate under 1 and schools and Universities operating anything like normally has simply been incompatible.Carnyx said:
Ah, I'd read differently in a newspaper report - thanks.DavidL said:
That article says "at least" 6 weeks. My nephew is at Dundee and that what has been indicated to him. All his classes bar one have been online anyway and he has not been able to attend that one for some weeks as he was in quarantine. Its been tough.Carnyx said:
More correctly "up to" - staggered return.DavidL said:
I think the Scottish government is looking to delay the return of students back to their halls for about 6 weeks. Although I feel very sorry for those such as my nephew who have had a pretty shit first year as a student that is probably a sensible response in light of the anticipated January increase and will hopefully reduce the pressure on hospitals.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
https://www.gov.scot/news/staggered-return-to-campus-for-university-students/#:~:text=Further COVID testing before restart,coronavirus (COVID-19).0 -
When the inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic takes place, the Christmas hall pass will be up there with releasing Covid-19 patients back into care homes as avoidable disasters.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.1 -
I’m happy to stake my flag on the hill of “no one should honour shitty dictators” and assume good faith that neither Carlotta nor Bruno was taking a europhobic pop at Macron.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.0 -
"I have in my hand a piece of - Shit!"CarlottaVance said:0 -
No, it's time for our disingenuous Prime Minister and the wretched Conservative Party to "grow up".Big_G_NorthWales said:0 -
Ceaucescu as well.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Plus Jimmy Saville and Margaret Hodge, of course.0 -
So it means something more like "gay"?MarqueeMark said:
I fear January/February is going to redefine "grim".Foxy said:
Yes, it is looking bad again here. Inpatient numbers over 200 again after dropping to 170 or so last week, and we haven't seen the effect of unlocking yet.Malmesbury said:UK R
From case data
From hospital data
Trust management have halted admissions for planned surgery, except daycases, and I saw an eye watering figure of 40% of respiratory unit staff off at present, gaps filled by the press-gang actively recruiting specialists from other areas. December is going to be grim.0 -
The list will be so long that one more or less scarcely matters.TheScreamingEagles said:
When the inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic takes place, the Christmas hall pass will be up there with releasing Covid-19 patients back into care homes as avoidable disasters.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?
0 -
How do they know which weekend that is going to be in advance?OnboardG1 said:
I’d be keen. Maybe the SG could move the summer bank holidays to actual summer.Philip_Thompson said:
Christmas in the summer like downunder.Malmesbury said:
Cancel Christmas.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
Announce a week long bank holiday next year, as a replacement. To be held 1 month after the vaccination rate reaches 90% of the population.0 -
I really struggle to see the reason for it. So the people already against measures would call you a grinch (well, I've never heard abyone but an american use that expression though), so what? And maybe ignore restrictions, but most won't.TheScreamingEagles said:
When the inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic takes place, the Christmas hall pass will be up there with releasing Covid-19 patients back into care homes as avoidable disasters.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?0 -
The only plausible reason I've heard is that the government thought people would meet up at Christmas no matter what the government said that this was their way of trying to control it some way.kle4 said:
I really struggle to see the reason for it. So the people already against measures would call you a grinch (well, I've never heard abyone but an american use that expression though), so what? And maybe ignore restrictions, but most won't.TheScreamingEagles said:
When the inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic takes place, the Christmas hall pass will be up there with releasing Covid-19 patients back into care homes as avoidable disasters.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
In this country it would be the Oxford vaccine for patriotic Tory voters, and Pfizer/BioNTech for the rest of us.Philip_Thompson said:This is a diabolically cynical suggestion but it madly could actually work.
https://twitter.com/JonAskonas/status/1336690583444856834?s=19
Sounds like a brilliant idea.1 -
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
It was only judged unlawful by the Supreme Court. The Queens Bench (itself comprising a very strong bench for that ruling) had previously ruled it was legal.TheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?
Who's a Queen to believe?0 -
Absolutely. I've turned down two invitations already, with friendly regrets. If the vaccine hadn't been in sight, I might not have.OnboardG1 said:
That’s a reasonable position. I’m hoping more people align with it and Christmas isn’t a disaster.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
Essentially just giving up for a bit is not a way of controlling it. They could still have tried.TheScreamingEagles said:
The only plausible reason I've heard is that the government thought people would meet up at Christmas no matter what the government said that this was their way of trying to control it some way.kle4 said:
I really struggle to see the reason for it. So the people already against measures would call you a grinch (well, I've never heard abyone but an american use that expression though), so what? And maybe ignore restrictions, but most won't.TheScreamingEagles said:
When the inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic takes place, the Christmas hall pass will be up there with releasing Covid-19 patients back into care homes as avoidable disasters.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.0 -
Your attempts at royalist trolling are usually a bit too absurd to work as they are not believable, but I honestly cannot tell if you mean this one - surely if she does what the PM tells her to do it proves our calling ourselves a democracy is absolutely correct. And his decision to advise her to do it was found to be unlawful, so it all worked out.TheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?0 -
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
Tell me about it.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
Not strong enough and obscured by appearing to be a Boris jest. People will mingle while perhaps trying to remember to be careful, and then they'll have a glaass or two and... Like the earlier injunction to "be alert", it doesn't cause any change of action, unlike NOT getting together and risk killing each other.Philip_Thompson said:
I thought the "jolly careful" catchphrase was a good one. Corny but Christmas is always corny. Should be repeated more often until everyone is rolling their eyes at it (but the message has gotten through).rottenborough said:
The messaging on this has bordered on criminal to be honest. Someone in Downing Street was briefing the press about "saving xmas" weeks ago and things have just snowballed from there.RobD said:
They even gave us a trial run of the experiment to show how mad it is.IshmaelZ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/covid-patient-tells-doctor-all-22-people-at-her-thanksgiving-dinner-have-symptoms/ar-BB1bLDQf?ocid=uxbndlbingRobD said:
Yeah, "You won't get fined for visiting your relatives over Christmas, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely stupid thing to do."Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
0 -
Our constitution is based on Crown in Parliament, the Crown will never overturn a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament but otherwise the PM has full prerogative powers over the rest as the Crown's chief ministerTheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?0 -
So if Parliament passed a modern day Edict of Expulsion the Queen would pass it?HYUFD said:
Our constitution is based on Crown in Parliament, the Crown will never overturn a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament but otherwise the PM has full prerogative powers over the rest as the Crown's chief ministerTheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?0 -
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.1 -
Indeed and universities could have been opened "remotely".Casino_Royale said:
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
It doesn't matter one tiny bit who joins and who doesn't. The issue is whether there is any legal weight at all in the substantive arguments. Clue - there isn't.MrEd said:
Which sounds like a fair description. However, other states have joined in, which may (or may not) have an influence. I'd be interested to see what happens if someone like Florida joined.rottenborough said:
The case from TX has been described as a “press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” by a law professor.MrEd said:
Oh I'd agree with that which is why I think Cruz has got something to do with it (and with his comment he would have presented the PA case to SCOTUS).rcs1000 said:
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!MrEd said:
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.rpjs said:
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.
As throughout this process, you just don't understand how the law works. You think it's all about what the President tweets and who signs up to what lawsuit, but it's all about the case being made.
And, here, the immovable object is that Trump has always been demanding many thousands of unarguably lawful ballots to be thrown out because a handful of crazies, alcoholic ex-strippers, and perhaps even one or two concerned citizens claim a minor irregularity here and there (which of course there are in a 150 million vote election). Now that's moved to claiming those votes should be thrown out because, whilst cast in good faith, Texas have had a little think about it and they'd not have run their election exactly like Michigan. Whether the AG of Florida, or Kanye, or the Pope, or whoever sign up to that tosh means sod all - the whole tragic enterprise has always been going nowhere.0 -
I have a question about this chart... doesn't this mean not only is Pfizer jab highly effective after a week after a single jab, but weren't a significant number of the positives in the vaccine group already positive when they actually go their jab? Were they not testing before you got injected? Or is there some sort of adjustment in their data?
https://twitter.com/deniswirtz/status/1336368646768259082?s=191 -
0
-
I don't think next year will be that bad for deaths - check out the impact Pfizer has:
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1336683275209863168?s=191 -
Wouldn't matter if she did or not. The second a monarch doesn't given royal assent parliament would either get rid of the monarchy or pass a rule that worked around it, like Belgium did according to wikipedia.TheScreamingEagles said:
So if Parliament passed a modern day Edict of Expulsion the Queen would pass it?HYUFD said:
Our constitution is based on Crown in Parliament, the Crown will never overturn a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament but otherwise the PM has full prerogative powers over the rest as the Crown's chief ministerTheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?
There's many reasons to have a republic - pretending to be mad that the monarch doesn't exercise actual power to overrule the democratic representatives (even doing something awful) is not one of them. At least not one someone could claim with a straight face. "It's crazy we have a monarch in a democratic society; and did you hear how they didn't go against the democratic parliament?"1 -
We’ve coped pretty well at mine, no huge outbreaks, mix of in person and remote teaching, and kept clinical (pharmacy) and science practicals going. I’ve even managed to get useful results from undergrad projects. So not impossible. Clearly the advent of the vaccine changes things, and if we had known for sure it would be here when it was, different choices might have been better. But we didn’t know that vaccines would work and be available so soon, so had to plan for life with the virus.Casino_Royale said:
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
It's one thing to re-open (or more accurately, widen the opening) of schools, and a good thing. Get everyone in (say) 1 day a week- so that nobody falls off the radar as happened in spring. Get key kids in more than that- up to full time for some. But business as usual was a foreseeable mistake.Casino_Royale said:
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.
But acknowledge that running at full capacity does increase transmission in the community and was always likely to. And that schools simply don't have to spare capacity of people, energy or money to cope- the schools I know have had multiple part-closures and the teachers are running on fumes. On top of which, it seems set to get worse before it gets better.
But arrogant wishful thinking is this government's signature move.1 -
Interesting that Lombardy and New York (state) hit hard in the second wave, London seems to have escaped.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1336735294851264513?s=190 -
So long as the placebo group was treated the same as the vaccine group is the main thingFrancisUrquhart said:I have a question about this chart... doesn't this mean not only is Pfizer jab highly effective after a week after a single jab, but weren't a significant number of the positives in the vaccine group already positive when they actually go their jab? Were they not testing before you got injected? Or is there some sort of adjustment in their data?
https://twitter.com/deniswirtz/status/1336368646768259082?s=190 -
No. After six months on my sofa, it was great to see Fox jr2 getting back on with life in London. Obviously not the full Monty, but he is studying hard, and socialising in a responsible way, rather than just drifting.noneoftheabove said:
Indeed and universities could have been opened "remotely".Casino_Royale said:
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.
Same with schools. Life cannot be on hold forever.0 -
Not for everything. Some courses need practical time or clinical training.noneoftheabove said:
Indeed and universities could have been opened "remotely".Casino_Royale said:
Universities, yes. Not schools.tlg86 said:
I actually think opening schools and universities was a big mistake.Stuartinromford said:
Trouble is that keeping schools open(ish) is about the only success the government can point to apart from buying lots of vaccines.tlg86 said:
I'm genuinely shocked that this hasn't happened. It seems so blindingly obvious. I'd go as far as to say they should have shut the schools two weeks ago and said they can go back in mid-January or something.rottenborough said:
The vaccine arrival changes the dynamics of this a hell of a lot. I've been tending towards the 'learning to live with it' side of things, but now only weeks from mass vaccination.DavidL said:
Yes. That would be the right thing to do.OnboardG1 said:
I think the best thing for them to do now is get JVT and Johnson on the telly at a briefing with the latest US figures and say "This is what happens when you mingle at a major holiday with lots of people. Please, please, consider cancelling your plans. We aren't going to arrest you for having a Christmas Lunch but with the vaccine on the horizon it just isn't worth it".DavidL said:
Its a roll of the dice, no question. And I have sympathy with those who say that is not a very governmental approach. Like intercontinental nuclear war the only way to win is not to play.Carnyx said:
I do hope you are right, and I'm sure you are right that they will help. But enough?DavidL said:
Is that not what Vallance is trying to put right today? Not enough on its own of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think the big mistake has been that, in the messaging, the government and especially Boris have concentrated too much on the relaxation of the legal rules, and not enough on what should be the accompanying message that people should voluntarily avoid contact and stay at home if it's reasonably possible to do so.OnboardG1 said:I'd need to find it but I read this morning (might have been sky news) that only 13% of people were planning on meeting at Christmas before the relaxations were announced. It's now 33%. Perhaps a sense of "The government says we can do it so it must be okay?". I thought the Christmas relaxation was probably neccessary because otherwise people would just say fuck it and take the piss, but I'm really starting to think that it wasn't a good plan now.
And whilst families will mix more at Christmas people will not be going to work so much, few will be using public transport, the schools and Universities will be shut, the pubs are going to be shut in large parts of the country (many, sadly, permanently) and I don't see the boxing day sales being up to much. In other words there will be offsets against the family mixing.
People can hang on now and have a gathering at Easter. Yeh, its a bit shit but its the sensible thing now.
At least one academy trust planned to close a week early and were told "not on your nelly" by the DfE.0 -
Under our constitutional monarchy yes, in that case the voters would clearly have elected a Corbynite or latter day Mosley led Parliament with bells on but that is democracy. You would just try and elect a sensible Parliament the next time, the one thing she would likely do is refuse to extend a Parliament beyond 5 years without a general election beforehandTheScreamingEagles said:
So if Parliament passed a modern day Edict of Expulsion the Queen would pass it?HYUFD said:
Our constitution is based on Crown in Parliament, the Crown will never overturn a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament but otherwise the PM has full prerogative powers over the rest as the Crown's chief ministerTheScreamingEagles said:
As we saw with the prorogation crisis the Queen will do anything her PM tells her to do, including unlawful stuff, and we call ourselves a democracy.CarlottaVance said:
On the advice of her then Prime Minister John Major....in 1994.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until Bruno finds out who Her Majesty has honoured.CarlottaVance said:
Sir Robert Mugabe for starters.
Who advised Macron to do it, and if it was such a great idea, why did the French not issue any photographs?0 -
Maybe, I hope I'm wrong, I saw some stats earlier which showed London really was heading for Tier 3.FrancisUrquhart said:Interesting that Lombardy and New York (state) hit hard in the second wave, London seems to have escaped.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1336735294851264513?s=190 -
Not that there's there nothing to it, but wasn't expecting this story quite so soon.
Rich countries are hoarding doses of Covid vaccines and people living in poor countries are set to miss out, a coalition of campaigning bodies warns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55229894
0 -
I should have prefaced with so far. I haven't checked the past couple of weeks, so you might be right that the situation is heading the wrong direction.TheScreamingEagles said:
Maybe, I hope I'm wrong, I saw some stats earlier which showed London really was heading for Tier 3.FrancisUrquhart said:Interesting that Lombardy and New York (state) hit hard in the second wave, London seems to have escaped.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1336735294851264513?s=190 -
I think single dose for the Pfizer jab will make a lot of people immune to a large extent, and this will start to impact on cases some time in mid to late jan.FrancisUrquhart said:I have a question about this chart... doesn't this mean not only is Pfizer jab highly effective after a week after a single jab, but weren't a significant number of the positives in the vaccine group already positive when they actually go their jab? Were they not testing before you got injected? Or is there some sort of adjustment in their data?
https://twitter.com/deniswirtz/status/1336368646768259082?s=191 -
wonder who used his phone to send all those whatsapp messagesturbotubbs said:
I smoked the cigarette, but did not inhale...Scott_xP said:0 -
But, but we rushed it.FrancisUrquhart said:1 -
Don't speak too soon 🤞FrancisUrquhart said:Interesting that Lombardy and New York (state) hit hard in the second wave, London seems to have escaped.
/twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1336735294851264513?s=190 -
If you were an ambitious Secretary of State in Wyoming or Florida or wherever, why wouldn't you sign up?MrEd said:
Which sounds like a fair description. However, other states have joined in, which may (or may not) have an influence. I'd be interested to see what happens if someone like Florida joined.rottenborough said:
The case from TX has been described as a “press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” by a law professor.MrEd said:
Oh I'd agree with that which is why I think Cruz has got something to do with it (and with his comment he would have presented the PA case to SCOTUS).rcs1000 said:
They got involved because the politicians in question saw electoral value in the next Primary season from being seen as a big supporter of President Trump!MrEd said:
Yes, agree on that, @rpjs, as you said, the ramifications would be huge if you took it to the logical conclusions and your example is a good one. Plenty of others too.rpjs said:
If only because there's no way SCOTUS is going to open the door to states suing each other for enacting laws they don't like: for a start, states like NY with strong gun control laws would see the door open to sue states with weak gun control laws for enabling a supply of illegal firearms across state lines.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
I guess (for me anyway) the real interesting question is why Texas (and others) have got themselves involved with this, especially as Texas has been cooperative with states on other matters and, as you said, you would assume the chances are close to zero. It could be a bit of virtual signalling to the Trump base that they tried to do something, it could be the Republicans trying to get SCOTUS to say something about common standards for federal elections or it could be Ted Cruz prodding the Texas AG to come out with this so it helps his chances with Trump / his fan base in 2024.
It's really that simple. It's exactly the same stupid reason - narrow, temporary political advantage - that sees Keir Starmer instagram a picture of himself on one knee.1 -
I'll try and find the link but I did read that some of the tourist destination poor countries are offering silly money for the vaccine so as a vaccinated country holidaymakers will pile back.kle4 said:Not that there's there nothing to it, but wasn't expecting this story quite so soon.
Rich countries are hoarding doses of Covid vaccines and people living in poor countries are set to miss out, a coalition of campaigning bodies warns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-552298940
This discussion has been closed.