CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[scenario8]

Stuzza said:

CAH706 said:

This morning the BBC had a reasonably prominent piece on Texas reopening. Now, I can’t seem to see this......I wonder why?

This one? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255701

404 via that link for some reason (on my devices currently anyway!)

This is currently not on the news front page (desktop or tablet versions of the site) as it was briefly, nor on the World pages - but can be found as the 29th story (at the time of posting) on the US page.

I think the OP is fair to note the dropping of most lockdown measures in many states is being given scant coverage - and even then is hardly being spun positively.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5625570...

[Ntv]

djc206 said:

Ntv said:

You think that on a net basis jobs in hospitality will not be viable in July or August, but will be in October or November?

The world has changed. Aviation will indeed be very hard hit for a long time. There were jobs in aviation 18 months ago that will not exist in 6 months or 6 years from now.

World has changed.

They are propping up the world of 2019. In an effort to avert unrest (an entirely justifiable concern IMO).

The world really doesn’t need to change long term. There’s no reason why we can’t all pile back into pubs both here and in Magaluf. But that’s not going to happen in June to the extent we need it to in order to abandon all support.

Hospitality not so much although offering a bit of a lifeline if things get off to a slow start doesn’t hurt. If they don’t need it then that’s a win, if they do then the decision is still the correct one.

I would suggest furlough is cheaper than the alternative. If people lose their jobs they end up on benefits which are expensive and bureaucratic, you also impose a burden on social housing which is already overloaded. Easier just to pay people their £2500 and keep them in the employed stats, that also looks better. In the grand scheme of things furlough really isn’t that expensive. So far it’s cost ~£55bn and the amount being claimed has fallen to around £3.5bn per month and that will fall as we reopen various sectors as it did last year. It’s my view that furlough is the best thing the government have done during this pandemic although that’s not exactly high praise.

HI, I think the world has changed, even longer term. Though agree completely that much of normality will come back, hopefully quickly. I think concern about viruses, the accelerated remote learning experiment of the past year, plus green concerns will curtail the recovery of air travel very substantially. Though obviously bucket and spade stuff will in large part come back - Greece and Spain need it badly for a start.

Furlough is way more expensive than benefits - way way way more. It's also grossly unfair on the unemployed seeking work. It also buys support for destructive policies. It's also for many employees, sadly, not in their longer term interests.

I agree with the basic idea of supporting viable businesses through a difficult period as more damage would be done otherwise, but after a year and a half the question is what are we now doing. The argument for continuing becomes weaker each day.

Let's take hospitality. The country will be fully open we're told in June. Right now holiday bookings have surged massively and festivals are selling out quickly. There are a few things we don't know, such as when sports events can be fully attended (I heard today Wimbledon is going ahead with 50% capacity).

So why are we furloughing workers through July and August? One has to recognise the long period of time between early 2020 and Q3 2021 and that it isn't just a short tide-ing over. The market will have changed. Which hospitality businesses will need these workers who used to work for them in early 2020 but have since largely been on furlough to suddenly come on stream in October 2021?

[RemarkLima]

johnboy1975 said:

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

Pretty much this. Even not voting risks letting Labour in. And they'd have gone earlier, harder and for longer regarding this (and therefore any future) pandemic.

Maybe politics needs to change. There's certainly scope for Labour to split along the new Labour/ momentum lines (although maybe that opportunity/danger has passed now?)

Perhaps the Tories need to split along the lockdown / open up divide? (Dont think we are there yet, any backwards moving of the dates or a future lockdown will see the battle lines quickly drawn though (I hope))

If this could spur proper Proportional Representation that would be good - a meaningful coalition that spanned all party views would represent the country accurately!

[Ntv]

vonuber said:

Ntv said:

That's partly why we need an end to FPTP. Nothing in my lifetime has shown this more starkly than covid and HMG response.

We need a certain number (100 say) of MPs to be elected in proportion to the national vote.

I've been banging the PR drum for years, but apparently people like strong government elected by a minority.

I think the concern about coalitions and back room deals etc from PR is a fair one.

The key thing for me is we need a system that better reflects the range of views in the country. Doesn't have to be a huge deviation from FPTP, and the advantages it brings, to achieve that

[Graveworm]

bern said:

Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?

So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 16:08

[Otispunkmeyer]

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

I've always thought voting in this country is difficult. Certainly Labour would never get my vote in their current form, but the Tory vote sorta swings between genuinely decent option or "the least stty end of the stick" choice..

But now for me its literally a choice of which limb to do you hacking off? Or you can abstain or draw a knob on the ballot. I know what I'd rather do.

ETA: Thinking sensibly, it'd be a vote for Tory as a means of keeping Labour out. But that's hardly a great thing is it. They'll see it as a vote of confidence when its anything but....its just their st stinks a little less, but still makes your eyes water.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 3rd March 16:44

[ant1973]

The increases unveiled by Rishi Sunak will bring the UK tax burden up to levels not seen for half a century, according to a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility that was issued alongside the Budget.

The OBR report said: “The tax rises announced in this Budget increase the tax burden from 34.0 per cent to 35.0 per cent of GDP in 2025-26, its highest level since Roy Jenkins was chancellor in the late 1960s.”

It said that half of the increase was due to the 6 percentage point increase in the corporation tax rate to 25 per cent.

Jenkins was chancellor from 1967 to 1970 in the Labour government of Harold Wilson.

https://www.ft.com/content/7ab638c8-d5f7-4e42-a786...

No biggie, I guess...

[ant1973]

johnboy1975 said:

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

Pretty much this. Even not voting risks letting Labour in. And they'd have gone earlier, harder and for longer regarding this (and therefore any future) pandemic.

Maybe politics needs to change. There's certainly scope for Labour to split along the new Labour/ momentum lines (although maybe that opportunity/danger has passed now?)

Perhaps the Tories need to split along the lockdown / open up divide? (Dont think we are there yet, any backwards moving of the dates or a future lockdown will see the battle lines quickly drawn though (I hope))

The Tories rely on what you say - "who else will they vote for" is their standard response when screwing over their core vote. I am now at the bloody minded stage and will not vote for them. How else will they get the message? Maybe next time they will give some thought to taking an approach that fits with my expectations.

[Jordan210]

Figures are delayed today :Owing to an issue with the processing of cases data,

Deaths are on NHS site for England is in low 200's so depending on other nations nearly a 50% drop

[p1stonhead]

ant1973 said:

The increases unveiled by Rishi Sunak will bring the UK tax burden up to levels not seen for half a century, according to a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility that was issued alongside the Budget.

The OBR report said: “The tax rises announced in this Budget increase the tax burden from 34.0 per cent to 35.0 per cent of GDP in 2025-26, its highest level since Roy Jenkins was chancellor in the late 1960s.”

It said that half of the increase was due to the 6 percentage point increase in the corporation tax rate to 25 per cent.

Jenkins was chancellor from 1967 to 1970 in the Labour government of Harold Wilson.

https://www.ft.com/content/7ab638c8-d5f7-4e42-a786...

No biggie, I guess...

How did you expect this to be paid for?

The rises for self employed seem quite reasonable to me (and I’ll suffer some of them myself).

[Harry H]

ant1973 said:

The Tories rely on what you say - "who else will they vote for" is their standard response when screwing over their core vote. I am now at the bloody minded stage and will not vote for them. How else will they get the message? Maybe next time they will give some thought to taking an approach that fits with my expectations.

I'm the same only my caveat is that I will not vote Tory whilst Hancock or Johnson have a seat in the Cabinet. I'll vote Monster Raving Loony (todays equivalent) or not vote at all.

What they've done in the budget is however a reasonably good response to where we find ourselves. We just shouldn't be in this position in the first place. Those two are the figure heads in my book for lies and proper-gander during the Covid outbreak that I find totally unacceptable with Conservative values. Although I do now have a little more sympathy for how Remoaners must feel.

[Jordan210]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Maybe they got pushed out to press. Not on Gov site.


Last week was 442 so a big drop

[Smollet]

Jordan210 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Maybe they got pushed out to press. Not on Gov site.


Last week was 442 so a big drop

[Jordan210]

Smollet said:

Thank You

24th cases 9,938. today 6385
24th death 442 today 315

[Zoobeef]

ant1973 said:

johnboy1975 said:

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

Pretty much this. Even not voting risks letting Labour in. And they'd have gone earlier, harder and for longer regarding this (and therefore any future) pandemic.

Maybe politics needs to change. There's certainly scope for Labour to split along the new Labour/ momentum lines (although maybe that opportunity/danger has passed now?)

Perhaps the Tories need to split along the lockdown / open up divide? (Dont think we are there yet, any backwards moving of the dates or a future lockdown will see the battle lines quickly drawn though (I hope))

The Tories rely on what you say - "who else will they vote for" is their standard response when screwing over their core vote. I am now at the bloody minded stage and will not vote for them. How else will they get the message? Maybe next time they will give some thought to taking an approach that fits with my expectations.

I just won't be voting. Whoever gets in, who gives a fk.

[foreright]

Zoobeef said:

ant1973 said:

johnboy1975 said:

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

Pretty much this. Even not voting risks letting Labour in. And they'd have gone earlier, harder and for longer regarding this (and therefore any future) pandemic.

Maybe politics needs to change. There's certainly scope for Labour to split along the new Labour/ momentum lines (although maybe that opportunity/danger has passed now?)

Perhaps the Tories need to split along the lockdown / open up divide? (Dont think we are there yet, any backwards moving of the dates or a future lockdown will see the battle lines quickly drawn though (I hope))

The Tories rely on what you say - "who else will they vote for" is their standard response when screwing over their core vote. I am now at the bloody minded stage and will not vote for them. How else will they get the message? Maybe next time they will give some thought to taking an approach that fits with my expectations.

I just won't be voting. Whoever gets in, who gives a fk.

Same here - voted for Boris as the best of a bad lot last time. Will be drawing something rude on the ballot paper next time.

[Carrot]

Zoobeef said:

ant1973 said:

johnboy1975 said:

Smollet said:

People saying they’re done with the Tories has got me as to wondering who they’ll vote for instead assuming they’ll still vote. Neither Labour nor the other lot haven’t exactly been the parties of low taxation. Quite the opposite in fact. I can’t see that changing .........ever. The Tories however will cut taxes when they can.

Pretty much this. Even not voting risks letting Labour in. And they'd have gone earlier, harder and for longer regarding this (and therefore any future) pandemic.

Maybe politics needs to change. There's certainly scope for Labour to split along the new Labour/ momentum lines (although maybe that opportunity/danger has passed now?)

Perhaps the Tories need to split along the lockdown / open up divide? (Dont think we are there yet, any backwards moving of the dates or a future lockdown will see the battle lines quickly drawn though (I hope))

The Tories rely on what you say - "who else will they vote for" is their standard response when screwing over their core vote. I am now at the bloody minded stage and will not vote for them. How else will they get the message? Maybe next time they will give some thought to taking an approach that fits with my expectations.

I just won't be voting. Whoever gets in, who gives a fk.

I haven't voted in over 20 years as it's always a choice between getting fked, or getting fked. So I am going to get fked I would rather it be a surprise...

Lo and behold, we have been royally fked again.

[ant1973]

p1stonhead said:

ant1973 said:

The increases unveiled by Rishi Sunak will bring the UK tax burden up to levels not seen for half a century, according to a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility that was issued alongside the Budget.

The OBR report said: “The tax rises announced in this Budget increase the tax burden from 34.0 per cent to 35.0 per cent of GDP in 2025-26, its highest level since Roy Jenkins was chancellor in the late 1960s.”

It said that half of the increase was due to the 6 percentage point increase in the corporation tax rate to 25 per cent.

Jenkins was chancellor from 1967 to 1970 in the Labour government of Harold Wilson.

https://www.ft.com/content/7ab638c8-d5f7-4e42-a786...

No biggie, I guess...

How did you expect this to be paid for?

The rises for self employed seem quite reasonable to me (and I’ll suffer some of them myself).

A broadly based tax increase that affected most people? This is the thin end of the wedge. All of this simply encourages Karen to believe that lockdowns are cost free (for them).

[MikeT66]

Ntv said:

That's partly why we need an end to FPTP. Nothing in my lifetime has shown this more starkly than covid and HMG response.

We need a certain number (100 say) of MPs to be elected in proportion to the national vote.

Absolutely this. The political landscape needs a massive restructuring to remain valid for the myriad of voices today... otherwise it will die.

Tony Benn said:

If democracy is ever to be threatened, it will not be by revolutionary groups burning government offices and occupying the broadcasting and newspaper offices of the world. It will come from disenchantment, cynicism and despair caused by the realisation that the New World Order means we are all to be managed and not represented.

[Graveworm]

CrutyRammers said:

a) we've not had a vote, so you can't say "broadly supported by the majority". We've seen enough of the "shy tory" effect over the last decade that we should understand that.
b) If a democratically elected government changes the law such that things are no longer democratic, that should not just be accepted with a "well you voted for them" shrug. History, again.
c) The government has been deliberately and scientifically manipulating public opinion, and has enacted laws to limit what the media can say.
d) Democratic governments, supported by the opposition and majority, have enforced racial segregation, chemically castrated gays and all manner of other stuff we might think is not really on. Again, they don't get a free pass because "that's the system".

a) We have polls to show public opinion from several agencies, they all show very strong support for the restrictions at a level that is well outside their margin for error and would need them to be out by an order of magnitude more than they have ever been. None have shown lack of support, despite them also showing low satisfaction in the government themselves. Even within those who don't support the measures, a significant number said they do so because they believe they don't go far enough. So I can say broadly supported by the majority.
b) I agree and history shows us this but they haven't passed laws that change the basis of democracy. Democracy is government by elected representatives in free and fair elections. If they stop you voting them out or standing for parliament then that's undemocratic.
c) They may have but that is what governments do. I don't believe they have passed any laws to limit what the media can say.
d) Bad actions by wicked democratically governments are exactly that. Saying something is democratic doesn't get them a free pass and that's a straw man. They should be held to account, but it's not the same as saying it's undemocratic.