How my council FSM works. Tory Council. I am not a Tory. Parent selects supermarket. An e-mail is sent each week with a code, to the value of £15. Valid for 3 months. Click on it, enter password, and you get a 4 digit pin. Order shopping Online as normal. In store is more complex, but we are supposed to be discouraging that anyway. Click on redeem gift card. Enter info. If there is alcohol, it won't work. £15 is taken off the bill. Advantages. 1 Simple. 2 Can buy at your convenience. 3 Gives agency to get what you want. 4 No one knows you are on FSM. 5 Can take advantage of BOGOF and other offers. 6 No new delivery infrastructure needs to be set up. After some teething problems works very well.
Much better solution. Let the market provide.
That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now.
Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?
How does that work? 😕
Your specialist field, parliamentary sovereignty. There was a national voucher scheme in operation last year, Labour wanted to extend it and it was voted down.
Yes so now the scheme isn't national it is local. So some Councils have continued with the old scheme, other Councils are doing other schemes.
Why is Ben Bradley responsible for what local Councils are choosing to do? Surely local Councils should be held to account for their provision?
Presumably as a small govt libertarian you are in favour of reducing bureaucracy, unnecessary govt costs and red tape?
Why on earth replace a national voucher scheme that can be offered with very little admin and managed by a small group of civil servants, with a scheme that is run by councils who have to multiply that admin across dozens of councils, who are already over stretched and allow unnecessary middle men in to take a cut?
I can only think of two reasons:
The Bradley/Clarke feckless parents cant be trusted with a voucher angle Kleptocracy
Neither are any good for the government, although more people than will admit it do sympathise with the feckless parents view.
Local councils are struggling to do a job that Bradley and co have given them completely unnecessarily, the national voucher scheme we used last year was always going to deliver better outcomes.
I have said repeatedly that yes I would prefer vouchers so people can spend as they choose. I do not advocate food boxes.
The decision making was handed to local schools, LEAs and trusts to do as they chose to do. My guess is that some of them have tried to provide boxes on the cheap and pocket the difference.
Those that have chosen to continue with the old scheme I applaud that.
This is like one of those images that goes viral on Facebook except without religion and saying how many ticks can you get.
As an atheist I'm fully reconciled with taking my chances on eternal damnation so pleased to have got a few more ticks on that list. Pretty boring though so I imagine others have more.
What are cutters? Seems rather judgemental on my local park-keeper.
This is like one of those images that goes viral on Facebook except without religion and saying how many ticks can you get.
As an atheist I'm fully reconciled with taking my chances on eternal damnation so pleased to have got a few more ticks on that list. Pretty boring though so I imagine others have more.
What are cutters? Seems rather judgemental on my local park-keeper.
People who cut their arms etc?
When I was younger I once very briefly dated one. I'd met her wearing long sleeves, it was a shock to see how many scars she had on her arm.
The best results for the vaccine are 95% - 2 doses. So, if you have thousands of staff vaccinated, and a high prevalence - Foxy was talking about 20-30% infection rates...
This would be inevitable.
Yes, and one of the points made about the vaccines in general is that none prevent infection, they instead prevent hospitalisation, which is the case here. The Times splashing this article and quoting an unscientific nurse on how vaccines should be distributed is erring on the side of sensationalism. Especially since the latter part of the article says this is to be expected.
Helpful comment as well - "So the 2nd jab for him would have made no difference as given the incubation period of the virus he would already have been infected before the 2nd jab was originally due." - on the timeframes and the maths checks out because the 95% is recorded at two weeks after the second jab, he tested positive on the 8th which implies he was infected on the 31st-3rd, before he was due the second jab.
If he got seriously ill then that might be more of a problem.
If he tests positive, but does not get seriously ill, then all good. We only need the vaccine(s) to stop hospitalisation and death. They don't need to prevent mild illness.
In terms of reaching herd immunity quickly, we also want that vaccinated people cannot pass on the virus, or at least a large reduction in the chances that the virus is passed on.
How my council FSM works. Tory Council. I am not a Tory. Parent selects supermarket. An e-mail is sent each week with a code, to the value of £15. Valid for 3 months. Click on it, enter password, and you get a 4 digit pin. Order shopping Online as normal. In store is more complex, but we are supposed to be discouraging that anyway. Click on redeem gift card. Enter info. If there is alcohol, it won't work. £15 is taken off the bill. Advantages. 1 Simple. 2 Can buy at your convenience. 3 Gives agency to get what you want. 4 No one knows you are on FSM. 5 Can take advantage of BOGOF and other offers. 6 No new delivery infrastructure needs to be set up. After some teething problems works very well.
Much better solution. Let the market provide.
That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now.
Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?
How does that work? 😕
Your specialist field, parliamentary sovereignty. There was a national voucher scheme in operation last year, Labour wanted to extend it and it was voted down.
Yes so now the scheme isn't national it is local. So some Councils have continued with the old scheme, other Councils are doing other schemes.
Why is Ben Bradley responsible for what local Councils are choosing to do? Surely local Councils should be held to account for their provision?
Presumably as a small govt libertarian you are in favour of reducing bureaucracy, unnecessary govt costs and red tape?
Why on earth replace a national voucher scheme that can be offered with very little admin and managed by a small group of civil servants, with a scheme that is run by councils who have to multiply that admin across dozens of councils, who are already over stretched and allow unnecessary middle men in to take a cut?
I can only think of two reasons:
The Bradley/Clarke feckless parents cant be trusted with a voucher angle Kleptocracy
Neither are any good for the government, although more people than will admit it do sympathise with the feckless parents view.
Local councils are struggling to do a job that Bradley and co have given them completely unnecessarily, the national voucher scheme we used last year was always going to deliver better outcomes.
I have said repeatedly that yes I would prefer vouchers so people can spend as they choose. I do not advocate food boxes.
The decision making was handed to local schools, LEAs and trusts to do as they chose to do. My guess is that some of them have tried to provide boxes on the cheap and pocket the difference.
Those that have chosen to continue with the old scheme I applaud that.
In that case surely the people who voted to replace the old scheme are responsible? Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability and all that?
If he got seriously ill then that might be more of a problem.
If he tests positive, but does not get seriously ill, then all good. We only need the vaccine(s) to stop hospitalisation and death. They don't need to prevent mild illness.
Oh yes we do need it to stop spread. Otherwise you can forget about loosening of restrictions until almost everyone is vaccinated.
Cycling is allowed, so how far do the Boris/Brexit Derangement sufferers think cyclist should be allowed to cycle? End of the street and back for an hour?
Around Parliament Square in a loop I think, or ideally on an exercise bike in his basement gym.
Actually, scratch that, both are too dangerous. No movement at all is probably best.
Well said Mr Smithson. To add further weight to your argument, Vitamin D deficiency is a very serious issue in the UK, and is very bad news for warding off Covid, so spending time outside is extremely advisable. So the only real criticism of Boris here is that he wasn't showing *gulp* more flesh.
How my council FSM works. Tory Council. I am not a Tory. Parent selects supermarket. An e-mail is sent each week with a code, to the value of £15. Valid for 3 months. Click on it, enter password, and you get a 4 digit pin. Order shopping Online as normal. In store is more complex, but we are supposed to be discouraging that anyway. Click on redeem gift card. Enter info. If there is alcohol, it won't work. £15 is taken off the bill. Advantages. 1 Simple. 2 Can buy at your convenience. 3 Gives agency to get what you want. 4 No one knows you are on FSM. 5 Can take advantage of BOGOF and other offers. 6 No new delivery infrastructure needs to be set up. After some teething problems works very well.
Much better solution. Let the market provide.
That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now.
Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?
How does that work? 😕
Your specialist field, parliamentary sovereignty. There was a national voucher scheme in operation last year, Labour wanted to extend it and it was voted down.
Yes so now the scheme isn't national it is local. So some Councils have continued with the old scheme, other Councils are doing other schemes.
Why is Ben Bradley responsible for what local Councils are choosing to do? Surely local Councils should be held to account for their provision?
Presumably as a small govt libertarian you are in favour of reducing bureaucracy, unnecessary govt costs and red tape?
Why on earth replace a national voucher scheme that can be offered with very little admin and managed by a small group of civil servants, with a scheme that is run by councils who have to multiply that admin across dozens of councils, who are already over stretched and allow unnecessary middle men in to take a cut?
I can only think of two reasons:
The Bradley/Clarke feckless parents cant be trusted with a voucher angle Kleptocracy
Neither are any good for the government, although more people than will admit it do sympathise with the feckless parents view.
Local councils are struggling to do a job that Bradley and co have given them completely unnecessarily, the national voucher scheme we used last year was always going to deliver better outcomes.
I have said repeatedly that yes I would prefer vouchers so people can spend as they choose. I do not advocate food boxes.
The decision making was handed to local schools, LEAs and trusts to do as they chose to do. My guess is that some of them have tried to provide boxes on the cheap and pocket the difference.
Those that have chosen to continue with the old scheme I applaud that.
In that case surely the people who voted to replace the old scheme are responsible? Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability and all that?
Local accountability was introduced.
So yes whoever locally chose to replace the old scheme with this garbage is responsible. Other locales have continued with the old scheme, well done them.
Well said Mr Smithson. To add further weight to your argument, Vitamin D deficiency is a very serious issue in the UK, and is very bad news for warding off Covid, so spending time outside is extremely advisable. So the only real criticism of Boris here is that he wasn't showing *gulp* more flesh.
Not going to work in winter. Sun too low, weak etc. Dietary supplements. Spring to early autumn is a different matter of course.
Meanwhile, in 2 polls conducted entirely since January 6th, Trump's net approval rating is sharply down: Morning Consult -29 or -24 Quinnipiac University -27 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
To be fair, those are not the most Trump-friendly outfits. Rasmussen has -3, but then they didn't do terribly well with their predictions for Nov 3rd.
In their poll conducted after the riot/insurrection/attempted coup, at 48% Rasmussen has published Trump's approval rating as being higher than that in each of their previous three polls.
That says more about Rasmussen than it does about Trump.
There are going to be lots of stories like this. We know, even with 2 doses, Pfizer vaccine is ~90% against old style COVID. So that means 1 in 10 will still get it, it could well be Cockney / SA COVID, even more and he is a nurse, so maximally exposed day in day out and COVID is rampant.
Yes, exactly. After all these years I'm amazed that the PB Hysterions still don't grasp the difference between global results and isolated anecdote.
How my council FSM works. Tory Council. I am not a Tory. Parent selects supermarket. An e-mail is sent each week with a code, to the value of £15. Valid for 3 months. Click on it, enter password, and you get a 4 digit pin. Order shopping Online as normal. In store is more complex, but we are supposed to be discouraging that anyway. Click on redeem gift card. Enter info. If there is alcohol, it won't work. £15 is taken off the bill. Advantages. 1 Simple. 2 Can buy at your convenience. 3 Gives agency to get what you want. 4 No one knows you are on FSM. 5 Can take advantage of BOGOF and other offers. 6 No new delivery infrastructure needs to be set up. After some teething problems works very well.
Much better solution. Let the market provide.
This was the universal solution until Tory MPs decreed that parents would be spending the money on crack and whores.
In a rather happier O/T my son has got an offer to study PPE at St Anne's next year. I am chuffed to bits for him.
Congratulations, David, or to Jnr rather, but PPE at Oxford carries the very grave risk of ending up in the cabinet. So you do need to keep an eye on him.
I am sure that is not mandatory and that he can still do something useful with his life.
Make sure he makes friends with all those on the same course though - could be in line for some nice government contracts in due course.
Make sure he tells everyone that his Dad’s a PB Tory!
Comments
The decision making was handed to local schools, LEAs and trusts to do as they chose to do. My guess is that some of them have tried to provide boxes on the cheap and pocket the difference.
Those that have chosen to continue with the old scheme I applaud that.
When I was younger I once very briefly dated one. I'd met her wearing long sleeves, it was a shock to see how many scars she had on her arm.
new thread
Helpful comment as well - "So the 2nd jab for him would have made no difference as given the incubation period of the virus he would already have been infected before the 2nd jab was originally due." - on the timeframes and the maths checks out because the 95% is recorded at two weeks after the second jab, he tested positive on the 8th which implies he was infected on the 31st-3rd, before he was due the second jab.
I see this is irresponsible reporting.
No wonder the media is going on about bike rides. If the colours were reversed it would quite literally be a different story.
Actually, scratch that, both are too dangerous. No movement at all is probably best.
So yes whoever locally chose to replace the old scheme with this garbage is responsible. Other locales have continued with the old scheme, well done them.
That says more about Rasmussen than it does about Trump.
And if one reads the gospels, might Jesus not fall into that category ?