holystove

As mentioned in the article, he wasn't serious about the severity of the virus. As late as March he was talking about shaking hands in hospitals with Corona patients. May wouldn't have done that, she certainly wouldn't have boasted about it. He sent out all the wrong signals when it was clear countries with as good or better health care services as the UK were already failing. May didn't surround herselves with exceptionalists like Cummings who pushed for a different approach (herd immunity) to the rest of the world as they assumed to be smarter. There are times when it is not relevant to push people to think outside the box. May would have put fighting Corona first, Boris always weighs up if it doesn't hurt brexit. Mike is right, he's better than Trump.. but that's about it.

Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker.

They started testing everyone who comes into the hospitals here, people with broken legs etc.. turns out 8% have 0 symptoms yet are carrying the virus (and are contagious). 8% have it, spread it, and don't even know it !

Starmer, Cooper, Benn, Cherry, Hammond, Javid, Hunt, Greg Clark, .. , May. Easy list to compile, even for someone who only follows UK politics from afar.

If you're proposing a supra-national type of body that would provide an institutional framework where member-countries could agree common high standards for Food Safety, I'm all for it Paul

Point is, the reality of Brexit is yet undefined. Any future relationship is still on the table. I'd say, the current government is in no position to deliver the national unity you speak of. It is too ideological about the "purity" of brexit that it is blinded to compromise and nuance. The corona crisis really brings this to the fore. Johnson refuses to coordinate anything with the EU member states through EU institutions. I find this baffling as I would have thought the health of UK (and EU) citizens would take a backseat to political ideology. Cleary this thing will only get resolved through international cooperation at every level. One recent example: yesterday it became clear the UK is not participating in Corona-related EU procurement schemes to buy ventilators, protective gear for hospital staff or corona virus testing kits. All of which the UK does not have remotely enough of and thus would be a beneficiary of buying in bulk and distribution amongst the worst hit European states. We've come a long way from David Cameron and the British Government that were involved in setting up the 2014 EU Joint Procurement Agreement to tackle the H1N1 pandemic...

UK was in the same place only a couple of weeks ago. (at one private event at the end of February, Cummings outlined then government’s strategy at the time in a way that was summarised by some present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”) And now the UK is in semi-lockdown. US will get there too.. until we find a way to fight this virus, defense is the only option and that means quarantine.

UK health ministers are refusing to attend European health ministers conference calls because it doesn't rhyme with brexit.. ffs.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/coronavirus-uk-strategy-deaths Seems UK experts have realized their model was wrong and are now taking the same measures most other countries are taking, as adviced by the WHO. Hope the damage done is limited.

Sounds good in theory but requires up to date and adequate testing, which in practice is not really possible. You have to be able to look one or two weeks into the future, and predict when the health services are going to be overrun. If they are already overrun, you are too late with the quarantine. I also don't get his point that you can only quarantine once.. and why does he assume literally everyone will get corona, regardless of how a country approaches it...

Just pointing out it goes against the approach most other countries are taking. As I understand it, the UK approach is based on creating a herd immunity. But for that to happen, a lot of people need to get infected, possibly and quite likely, including a lot of vulnerable people. Herd immunity only works when the virus comes back, when, because a lot of people are immune, it can't spread to the weakest who don't have immunity as they are 'shielded' by the immune ones. Is it better to lose more lives than necessary now, in order to be able to better face it in the future? Why not just wait for a functioning vaccine when it comes back next year?

The UK approach Apparently you guys are the 'control group'; good luck.

Seeing how badly it is handled in the US I can't believe there isn't a travel ban for people coming from there. Schools closing for 5 weeks starting Monday here, with explicit instruction to not bring your kids to your grandparents..

Seconded. Loved those as someone who doesn't get to watch many Everton games.

Shouldn't the VP be from a swing state though? California seems pretty safe for the Democrats.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/01/downing-street-department-health-locked-row-access-eu-pandemic/

Whether or not the Tories decide to increase spending or not will only have a marginal effect. Only a healthy, growing economy can sustain the UK social model. With an aging domestic population, one necessary element is high immigration numbers, especially in a country with such a low unemployment rate. The big fault in your argument is you see the size of the welfare budget as a fixed parameter in your equation. In reality, less immigration = smaller economy = smaller tax intake = smaller welfare budget. Not even taking into account immigrants are over-represented in the social sector providing the services foreseen in the welfare budget. (and not even taking into account how much smaller the UK economy is, and will be, because of brexit).

By 'Democrats' I was referring to the people who vote in the primaries, not the candidates (who I assume are all principled and genuinely believe they are the best person to lead the USA). If you are voting in the primary, you might prefer Sanders because his agenda is the most 'left' (purity), but you should be aware once the general public get to vote, they might think your candidate too extreme (electability);

The parallels between Sanders and Corbyn are uncanny (even down to how their supporters hound people on social media who dare question the leader). If he wins the nomination, my guess is Trump is set for another 4 years because, just like in the UK, the majority will not choose to go with the revolutionary, no matter how much they disdain Trump. Seems the UK is really ahead of the curve. They got there first with Brexit (Trump) and Corbyn (Sanders). Democrats should take note of this and take away the approriate lessons (go for electability, not purity). Fwiw, I think Klobuchar would stand the best chance of beating Trump.

0,03% last elections.

I must say the reports on the celebrations were indeed framed as nationalism. EU continentals who only have a passing intrest in brexit, still view it with disbelief. The next phase will be very interesting. The project is most definitely now on brexiters and you can already sense the nervousness. I see only two outcomes. Brexit will either be a democratic failure if the UK continues to follow EU rules without a say to protect its economy ; or it will be an economic failure if the UK tries to sever ties to its biggest economic partner.

For the foreseeable future, the answer to every question about the future relationship will be 'it depends'.

I see two reasons for this: 1) UK leaving the EU on January 31 was decided by the December 2019 election, so the real 'elation' for brexiters was when the election result became clear. Today is just an inevitable consequence of that result. 2) for all pratical purposes, the UK will still be an EU member until January 2021. It is only from 2021 on, that your every day life will be impacted by Brexit.

Economic integration requires political integration. You can't have common rules, if there is no political platform to discuss what those rules should be. Increased cooperation (= federalism) is therefor a natural process. All countries in the EU are sovereign; being an EU member increases their sovereingty as it allows them to project power beyond what they would achieve alone. The EU, aside from being the biggest single market in itself, has, by far, the most free trade deals in the world of any economic entity. Your statement it is the most protectionist is one of the more meaningless you have made on here.