Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hafnia

Brexit...

Referendum  

50 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

On 23/03/2020 at 18:25, RPG said:

The debate really needs to move on to how Remainers (and Leavers for that matter) are going to adapt to post Brexit UK but that can only begin when the reality of Brexit is accepted by all and we all look forward to either taking the opportunites afforded by brexit or making the best of brexit.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, holystove said:

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...

Unfortunately, any argument such as the one you have just made will be perceived by hard brexiteers as looking for an excuse to backslide or water down brexit, whereas any argument to support Johnson can be subject to attempted hijack by die hard remainers.

As Palfy, quite rightly stated in a previous post, the gaps between the two sides are just too great and each sides arguments, irrespective of their academic merits, will be treated with huge suspicion by the other side.

That is why I think the debate needs to progress to post brexit issues but, as you rightly point out, the post brexit landscape is yet to be painted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can’t come together in a time of global crisis when can we come together. 
We will all become losers in the end, because we are allowing our politicians to make decisions on our behalf’s that most right minded people wouldn’t make, whether right left or middle of the road we’ve lost the ability to make our politicians accountable which I find worrying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the UK is coming together in this time of crisis. There is general cross party support for the measures being taken, Johnson has certainly stepped up to the plate and just because we didn't participate in one European meeting does not mean we are not engaging with other nations on the matter.

Also, UK being an island means that a different approach (or perhaps a variation on a similar theme) to that of continental Europe is the best way forward.

What I do like is that Johnson is listening to, and acting on, the advice of apolitical experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government posted if you are not a key worker do not go to work. 
Following day they changed that to only go to work if you cannot work from home. 
That’s not the actions of a prime minister or government that know what they are doing bar putting money before lives. 
They have been encouraging builders to go to work even if there working on contracts including housing how many people need to die to build a house which isn’t vital at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The government posted if you are not a key worker do not go to work. 
Following day they changed that to only go to work if you cannot work from home. 
That’s not the actions of a prime minister or government that know what they are doing bar putting money before lives. 
They have been encouraging builders to go to work even if there working on contracts including housing how many people need to die to build a house which isn’t vital at the moment. 

Worst thing the other night was it was purposely vague. They had already messaged companies informing them they can stay open if they are online i.e. We're not gonna support the workers. He should have been clearer in the message and said we're only doing half a job. Absolutely no point in telling people not to meet with their friends and family (and fining them if they do) when you're happy for them to go work in an office with 100s of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pete0 said:

Worst thing the other night was it was purposely vague. They had already messaged companies informing them they can stay open if they are online i.e. We're not gonna support the workers. He should have been clearer in the message and said we're only doing half a job. Absolutely no point in telling people not to meet with their friends and family (and fining them if they do) when you're happy for them to go work in an office with 100s of people. 

Maybe I am missing something but I can't really think of an office job that can't be done from home. I am sure there must be a few but with all the technology available to facilitate on line meetings there really shouldn't be any need for offices to be full of hundreds of people. Emirates Airline employs around 100,000 people and we are conducting business almost exclusively via email and on line meetings from home. Non safety critical functions that required human interaction have been suspended. We have even suspended all passenger flights.

I think one of the reasons the govt message may have appeared vague is to enable the government to head towards a situation of troops on the street if necessary but to get there one inch at a time. The reasons for that approach may well be buried in the pc changes to UK society that have taken place over the last couple of generations. Personally, I agree to a certain extent with that aspect of the criticism but UK isn't China or Russia and I can understand why Johnson is introducing the restrictions at the pace and in the manner that he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RPG said:

Maybe I am missing something but I can't really think of an office job that can't be done from home. I am sure there must be a few but with all the technology available to facilitate on line meetings there really shouldn't be any need for offices to be full of hundreds of people. Emirates Airline employs around 100,000 people and we are conducting business almost exclusively via email and on line meetings from home. Non safety critical functions that required human interaction have been suspended. We have even suspended all passenger flights.

I think one of the reasons the govt message may have appeared vague is to enable the government to head towards a situation of troops on the street if necessary but to get there one inch at a time. The reasons for that approach may well be buried in the pc changes to UK society that have taken place over the last couple of generations. Personally, I agree to a certain extent with that aspect of the criticism but UK isn't China or Russia and I can understand why Johnson is introducing the restrictions at the pace and in the manner that he is.

Any office that still uses desktops. Most companies rely on certain software so you can't just use your personal computer/laptop at home. 

It was vague as they wanted to sound like they were doing the right thing. What model has the government looked at were this is reduced by people not seeing their mates but still letting them go work in an office with 100s of people? 

Edit: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-03-25/social-distancing-concerns-raised-over-matalan-distribution-centre-in-knowsley/

Essential travel:

- to and from a warehouse ✔️

- between coparents houses

The government is basically saying doing your job i.e. making them and their mates money is more important than your health and seeing your kids. 

Back on to the models, big factor being socioeconomic, less paid jobs more likely to have to go in. Easily replaceable low skilled workers who cares if they die... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pete0 said:

Any office that still uses desktops. Most companies rely on certain software so you can't just use your personal computer/laptop at home. 

It was vague as they wanted to sound like they were doing the right thing. What model has the government looked at were this is reduced by people not seeing their mates but still letting them go work in an office with 100s of people? 

Edit: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-03-25/social-distancing-concerns-raised-over-matalan-distribution-centre-in-knowsley/

Essential travel:

- to and from a warehouse ✔️

- between coparents houses

The government is basically saying doing your job i.e. making them and their mates money is more important than your health and seeing your kids. 

Back on to the models, big factor being socioeconomic, less paid jobs more likely to have to go in. Easily replaceable low skilled workers who cares if they die... 

If any company uses only desk tops (and hundreds of them)  then they are so far behind the technology drag curve that they can't be employing key workers (I am sure there might be a couple of exceptions) and the workers should just be stood down.

Can you please provide examples where there are still offices in non essential industries requiring hundreds of people in them. You may be right but I am not aware of any.

The government message is not as you say at all. The government message is very simple. 'Stay at home, help the NHS, Save lives.' That message applies to everyone not in key work. I think we need to put partisan politics to one side here and look at what the government has done to fight this unprecedented crisis. No response will ever be perfect, much less perfect first time, but I am absolutely convinced (as are the vast majority of people I speak with) that this government's first priority is protecting health and beating Covid-19 and that they are actually doing a damn good job.

I don't see your last para as being anything other than a political snipe at a government that is generally acknowledged as doing a damn good job of tackling a massive crisis. Government advice is to stay at home and work from home if you can. Most firms in non key industries have already shut down - either through choice, government instruction or drying up of 'just in time' supply chains. There is a generous compensation scheme in place that is expanding all the time (now covers self employed as of today) and I think the government deserves great credit for the speed and manner with which it has been rolled out. 

Bottom line is that nothing this government does will ever be enough for some people because their anti tory genetic make up will always prevent an impartial view being taken and prevent credit being given where it is due. I understand that. At the moment I am watching Ed Balls being interviewed on BBC London News and he is full of praise for the way the government is handling the crisis.

There are still many measures left to be implemented, I am sure. But the best way to beat Covid-19 is to support the government (who are only implementing apolitical expert advice) and let normal political hostilities resume when we have beaten Covid-19.

I am currently in 14 days isolation (pending results of my second swab test) and working from home on the admin side of my job while trying to manage a 50% pay cut.

Stay safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RPG said:

If any company uses only desk tops (and hundreds of them)  then they are so far behind the technology drag curve that they can't be employing key workers (I am sure there might be a couple of exceptions) and the workers should just be stood down.

They should but the government has only closed shops that are open to the public. If they trade online they are allowed to stay open. Which means they need people to manage the stock levels, people to pick the stock, and people to operate the customer service side. 

Can you please provide examples where there are still offices in non essential industries requiring hundreds of people in them. You may be right but I am not aware of any.

The link shows non essential warehouses are open. How come you've not commented on that?

Any how any offices that are attached to any online company (other than those were the company had chosen to look after the staff as the government is unwilling). The government sent them a memo they could keep trading. Can't find the memo but if you don't believe me try ringing a call centre and you'll probably get through. 

Given the gov gave a memo to keep trading do you condemn them or do you agree the lower down on the socioeconomic ladder are needlessly sacrificial? 

The government message is not as you say at all. The government message is very simple. 'Stay at home, help the NHS, Save lives.' That message applies to everyone. I think we need to put partisan politics to one side here and look at what the government has done to fight this unprecedented crisis. No response will ever be perfect, much less perfect first time, but I am absolutely convinced (as are the vast majority of people I speak with) that this government's first priority is protecting health and beating Covid-19 and that they are actually doing a damn good job.

It was worded to sound like that but it was vague when it comes to travel to and from work. They should have been clearer that if you are unable to work from home the gov expects you to go. The whole self isolation concept and advice is fucked by this. 

I don't see your last para as being anything other than a political snipe at a government that is generally acknowledged as doing a damn good job of tackling a massive crisis. Government advice is to stay at home and work from home if you can. Most firms in non key industries have already shut down - either through choice, government instruction or drying up of 'just in time' supply chains. There is a generous compensation scheme in place that is expanding all the time (now covers self employed as of today) and I think the government deserves great credit for the speed and manner with which it has been rolled out. 

They deserve no praise. They've known for months and have dithered at every step. It's gone from don't worry it's less harmless than flu to self isolate (if you can afford to). 

Bottom line is that nothing this government does will ever be enough for some people because their anti tory genetic make up will always prevent an impartial view being taken and prevent credit being given where it is due. I understand that. At the moment I am watching Ed Balls being interviewed on BBC London News and he is full of praise for the way the government is handling the crisis.

Fact is your response is only so long as your tory ideals have been well and truly found out to be unhumanitarian. You didn't get to vote but those who did should be ashamed of themselves. Death is on their hands. Any other government would have had the NHS and the country better prepared. Tory government has prioritised corporations over the public. They are not fit to govern. 

There are still many measures left to be implemented, I am sure. But the best way to beat Covid-19 is to support the government (who are only implementing apolitical expert advice) and let normal political hostilities resume when we have beaten Covid-19.

The advice was to isolate weeks ago. We instead told people to wash their hands for 20 seconds and stand a meter apart if possible

I am currently in 14 days isolation (pending results of my second swab test) and working from home on the admin side of my job while trying to manage a 50% pay cut.

The government aren't even checking the NHS and supermarket workers here. Count yourself lucky to be in a country that is better prepared. 

Stay safe.

Get well. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-coronavirus-next-closing-entire-21761930?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mirror_main&fbclid=IwAR2CFCBPiOJLFv-JtbCRMUbNRM2e5-hsgaECT7Sp1ITl5geS1dI2nOu08tU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pete0 said:

The warehouses that you refer to should be 'essential' if they are staying open. Ie, food, medicines, essential supplies etc. If they are not essential then they should be closed down. That is common sense and should not require specific government advice. There will be a lot of gray areas of course. What about the postal system? Some of the mail may well be considered essential but most is probably not. What about garages? Not essential we may think but who services the doctors car and helps him get to work. These are complex issues that need resolving by common sense on a tactical level and it is unreasonable to expect a government to do anything other than at a strategic level at this stage of the crisis. Its like blaming the government when you pee your pants because they didn't tell you to go to the bathroom and symptomatic of the nanny state mentality that has crept into society over the last few generations. There are such things as personal responsibility and common sense but not many people seem to understand or want to understand these concepts. That said, I am sure the government has this action to take on its massively long 'ToDo' list. Local councils could certainly be empowered (if they are not already) to make such tactical decisions.

Nobody is 'sacrificial' but some essential jobs will expose workers to a higher level of risk - NHS being the obvious example. Procedures should be in place in the workplace to protect staff as much as is possible.

The government do deserve praise for the speed and manner in which precautionary measures and compensation packages have been rolled out. There are at least three things which do need condemnation though. The first is the selfish people who are ignoring the self isolation rules, stockpiling and thus being a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. The second is the profiteering by stores charging exorbitant prices for bog rolls, sanitiser etc. The third is people who try to make domestic political capital out of a global crisis.

I don't want to get into a political argument but the tory government response is ten times better than anything Corbyn could have done and Ed Balls tacitly said as much last night. I say that purely because it highlights that we have the best leadership in place to beat Covid-19 and I won't respond to any domestic political argument on a subject that is a global crisis. The focus should be on beating the virus, together. If some people are unwilling or unable to do that then they are also a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

UAE can respond faster than UK as it is not subject to the democratic system of cheques and balances that you have in UK. That is also why the response has been more effective (at least in part) in China, South Korea, Singapore and Russia I would suggest.

I have been tested twice but am still awaiting the results. The volume of people requiring testing means that there is quite a long wait to get the results. Every single passenger and crew member who entered UAE since measures were put in place has been tested and that is a huge number. The good news is that the results, like almost everything else in UAE, will be available on line.

Given my higher risk of catching Covid-19, it does make self isolating with my wife and daughter quite stressful in case I should give them the virus.

Although we have shut down our passenger flights we are still using our aircraft in their freighter role to help keep essential supplies moving.

Stay safe and let's remind ourselves when fighting this virus that Covid-19 will infect anyone, and that it cares nothing for our social status, salary or political affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so difficult for the government to force companies and individuals to stay at home unless they are a key to the welfare of the country. 
Firstly changing your policy mid stream hasn’t helped. 
Secondly still allowing companies and people to make there own choices. 
Thirdly not using powers to punish companies and people who break the rules.
Weak government will cost thousands of people their lives, and the shuttling of the door after the horse has bolted should be a crime in itself, we are weeks behind the strongest measures that should have and in some cases still haven’t been taken. 
Are builders still allowed to go to work if working on none essential projects, yes the government have repeated, why ?thousands have asked and been given a none coherent answer from all ministers who are trying to defend it. 
Warehouses open for the picking of clothes and furniture again why ?because this government is allowing them to operate. 
I don’t see a strong and decisive government far from it I see a weak government devoid of the backbone and strength of its convictions to lockdown completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Palfy said:

What is so difficult for the government to force companies and individuals to stay at home unless they are a key to the welfare of the country. 
Firstly changing your policy mid stream hasn’t helped. 
Secondly still allowing companies and people to make there own choices. 
Thirdly not using powers to punish companies and people who break the rules.
Weak government will cost thousands of people their lives, and the shuttling of the door after the horse has bolted should be a crime in itself, we are weeks behind the strongest measures that should have and in some cases still haven’t been taken. 
Are builders still allowed to go to work if not working on non essential projects, yes the government have repeated, why thousands have asked and been given a none coherent answer from all ministers who are trying to defend it. 
Warehouses open for the picking of clothes and furniture again why, because this government is allowing them to operate. 
I don’t see a strong and decisive government far from it I see a weak government devoid of the backbone and strength of its convictions to lockdown completely. 

The problem with a government being swift and decisive at the tactical level (micro managing if you like) is that the response may also subsequently prove to be inappropriate. The situation is a crisis - no question. But knee jerk reactions can make the situation worse, so a balance has to be maintained. That isn't easy and no government can or will get it 100% correct, 100% of the time. I would like to see local councils empowered to make those tactical decisions.

A complete lockdown would be ideal, I agree. I actually think it is coming very soon.

I understand your personal situation as far as you have explained it and I do agree that some government guidance would be good for you and others in your situation but did you not say that you have already stood your workers down and that they are eligible for 80% pay via the compensation scheme? I would call that strong leadership by the government and an excellent decision by yourself. The first priority is to beat the virus. The second is to protect jobs so that the economy and individual living standards can bounce back afterwards.

I don't think the government lacks backbone. I think it is escalating its actions appropriately and in a mature manner. That won't prevent many people being frustrated though and that is totally understandable in crisis management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RPG said:

The problem with a government being swift and decisive at the tactical level (micro managing if you like) is that the response may also subsequently prove to be inappropriate. The situation is a crisis - no question. But knee jerk reactions can make the situation worse, so a balance has to be maintained. That isn't easy and no government can or will get it 100% correct, 100% of the time. I would like to see local councils empowered to make those tactical decisions.

A complete lockdown would be ideal, I agree. I actually think it is coming very soon.

I understand your personal situation as far as you have explained it and I do agree that some government guidance would be good for you and others in your situation but did you not say that you have already stood your workers down and that they are eligible for 80% pay via the compensation scheme? I would call that strong leadership by the government and an excellent decision by yourself.

I don't think the government lacks backbone. I think it is escalating its actions appropriately and in a mature manner. That won't prevent many people being frustrated though and that is totally understandable in crisis management.

I do agree that the compensation scheme is excellent for a vast majority of people, the fact that a need in the future to raise taxes to try and recoup these crippling costs are more palatable than people not being able to live now is something we should all be happy to face. 
The fact that the government have taken the steps to make sure people can survive, should make it easier for a total lockdown I cannot understand why they are not introducing tougher sanctions against people and companies still carrying out none essential work, surely to take the tougher choices earlier would shorten a protracted route to the inevitable anyway, with the potential to save life’s and stop the NHS from going into to meltdown, and most importantly give our NHS heroes a fighting chance to treat people in a more safe environment, after all they are being swamped and putting their lives on the line, and people are still being allowed to leave home to further spread the virus, as a military man you must find this nonsensical, that you put your life on the line to save people yet the people you are trying to save still put themselves at risk, in battle the victors are usually those who make the toughest decisions first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I do agree that the compensation scheme is excellent for a vast majority of people, the fact that a need in the future to raise taxes to try and recoup these crippling costs are more palatable than people not being able to live now is something we should all be happy to face. 
The fact that the government have taken the steps to make sure people can survive, should make it easier for a total lockdown I cannot understand why they are not introducing tougher sanctions against people and companies still carrying out none essential work, surely to take the tougher choices earlier would shorten a protracted route to the inevitable anyway, with the potential to save life’s and stop the NHS from going into to meltdown, and most importantly give our NHS heroes a fighting chance to treat people in a more safe environment, after all they are being swamped and putting their lives on the line, and people are still being allowed to leave home to further spread the virus, as a military man you must find this nonsensical, that you put your life on the line to save people yet the people you are trying to save still put themselves at risk, in battle the victors are usually those who make the toughest decisions first. 

I agree 100% with almost everything you wrote. The only comment I would add is that government policy is to acknowledge that we can't wave a magic wand and stop Covid-19 spreading but we can control (to a degree) the pace at which it spreads. Herd immunity I believe it is called. At the moment I think we are slowly transitioning from that herd immunity approach to the full lock down that you suggest and I agree with. By actioning this process, we initially limited the number of people needing hospital care to manageable numbers at any one time, bought the NHS time and hopefully will now avoid a future short term spike in numbers that neither the NHS nor any health care system in the world could cope with.

To continue with your military analogy, we wouldn't want to order a nuclear strike for something that could be achieved by a large conventional warhead, but we would have the nuclear strike option ready to go.

The public can help the NHS win this war by staying at home and self isolating. If it takes a total lock down to make this happen then I do believe Johnson will invoke the necessary protocols. For the (short) time being I think he will continue to act on the advice of the apolitical experts.

Regarding payback of the costs, Ed Balls made the point last night that he was in the Treasury when the final payment to USA and Canada of our WW2 debt repayment schedule was made. That was in 2006, 61 years after the end of the war. There will be a period of repayment for Covid-19 and, at the moment, nobody really knows how much or how long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RPG said:

I agree 100% with almost everything you wrote. The only comment I would add is that government policy is to acknowledge that we can't wave a magic wand and stop Covid-19 spreading but we can control (to a degree) the pace at which it spreads. Herd immunity I believe it is called. At the moment I think we are slowly transitioning from that herd immunity approach to the full lock down that you suggest and I agree with. By actioning this process, we initially limited the number of people needing hospital care to manageable numbers at any one time, bought the NHS time and hopefully will now avoid a future short term spike in numbers that neither the NHS nor any health care system in the world could cope with.

To continue with your military analogy, we wouldn't want to order a nuclear strike for something that could be achieved by a conventional warhead, but we would have the nuclear strike option ready to go.

The public can help the NHS win this war by staying at home and self isolating. If it takes a total lock down to make this happen then I do believe Johnson will invoke the necessary protocols. For the (short) time being I think he will continue to act on the advice of the apolitical experts.

There is no magic wand but there are things we can do to try and minimise it’s effect, we may or may not be completely on the same page with whether we have done enough to date, but we are all looking for the same result, as my father use to say there’s more than one way to skin a cat. 
I’ve just read that the USA have more confirmed cases of the virus than China or Italy, it makes you wonder if Trump hasn’t played a big part in that with his grasp on the situation weeks ago, telling people carry on there’s no problem here and all the other rhetoric he was coming out with, could the USA end up being a case proven that poor leadership will cost thousands of lives, I hope not but all the signs aren’t looking to good. 
 

We need to stop this agreeing with each other we are spoiling everyone else’s fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Palfy said:

There is no magic wand but there are things we can do to try and minimise it’s effect, we may or may not be completely on the same page with whether we have done enough to date, but we are all looking for the same result, as my father use to say there’s more than one way to skin a cat. 
I’ve just read that the USA have more confirmed cases of the virus than China or Italy, it makes you wonder if Trump hasn’t played a big part in that with his grasp on the situation weeks ago, telling people carry on there’s no problem here and all the other rhetoric he was coming out with, could the USA end up being a case proven that poor leadership will cost thousands of lives, I hope not but all the signs aren’t looking to good. 

Being in the aviation industry, I hate to say this but I think we are largely to blame for the rapid spread. Person to person contact can infect states or even countries but for it to spread globally at such a rate, even Covid-19 needed a bit of a push and I think the travel industry probably gave it that push. The problem is that the horse had already bolted before the stable door was even noticed to be unlocked so, by definition, we begin the fight on the back foot and have to be reactive rather than pro active in the early stages.

It is also worth pointing out that the mortality rate for Covid-19 is not that high. Significantly higher than influenza but it is not the plague and most people will recover. Of course that does not absolve us of the responsibility to minimise its impact on the human race and I think the numbers of infections per country will (generally speaking) soon start to coalesce into groups of countries with liberal attitudes and little respect for law, order and each other being worst affected and countries with (by western standards) harsher governments seeing lower rates and/or a quicker recovery. If this does prove to be the case then it would support your argument for a full lockdown in the early stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RPG said:

Being in the aviation industry, I hate to say this but I think we are largely to blame for the rapid spread. Person to person contact can infect states or even countries but for it to spread globally at such a rate, even Covid-19 needed a bit of a push and I think the travel industry probably gave it that push. The problem is that the horse had already bolted before the stable door was even noticed to be unlocked so, by definition, we begin the fight on the back foot and have to be reactive rather than pro active in the early stages.

It is also worth pointing out that the mortality rate for Covid-19 is not that high. Significantly higher than influenza but it is not the plague and most people will recover. Of course that does not absolve us of the responsibility to minimise its impact on the human race and I think the numbers of infections per country will (generally speaking) soon start to coalesce into groups of countries with liberal attitudes and little respect for law, order and each other being worst affected and countries with (by western standards) harsher governments seeing lower rates and/or a quicker recovery. If this does prove to be the case then it would support your argument for a full lockdown in the early stages.

Without a doubt the travel industry whether business or pleasure as spread the virus quicker, this could be a good thing rather than a slow burn who knows. 
But I wouldn’t lay any blame at the travel industries door they have made the world a more accessible place for all to enjoy, and in their credit they have done more off their own backs to lockdown instead of waiting to be pushed, as some seem to be waiting for this to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hearing (via a normally very reliable source) that Johnson has just tested positive for Covid-19.

We are (or should be) all on the same side here and I wish him a speedy recovery, just as I would to Corbyn if he had tested positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Palfy said:

What is so difficult for the government to force companies and individuals to stay at home unless they are a key to the welfare of the country. 
Firstly changing your policy mid stream hasn’t helped. 
Secondly still allowing companies and people to make there own choices. 
Thirdly not using powers to punish companies and people who break the rules.
Weak government will cost thousands of people their lives, and the shuttling of the door after the horse has bolted should be a crime in itself, we are weeks behind the strongest measures that should have and in some cases still haven’t been taken. 
Are builders still allowed to go to work if working on none essential projects, yes the government have repeated, why ?thousands have asked and been given a none coherent answer from all ministers who are trying to defend it. 
Warehouses open for the picking of clothes and furniture again why ?because this government is allowing them to operate. 
I don’t see a strong and decisive government far from it I see a weak government devoid of the backbone and strength of its convictions to lockdown completely. 

I've seen this argument a fair bit but it never lays out what is behind door number two, we're a year away minimum from a vaccine. Under the total lockdown, how does it play out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chach said:

I've seen this argument a fair bit but it never lays out what is behind door number two, we're a year away minimum from a vaccine. Under the total lockdown, how does it play out?

Good question. Nobody knows the answer. That is one reason why I think we have been progressing slowly. Full lockdown has to be a weapon in our armoury but it will be used at a price and we must first make sure that we can predict what that price is likely to be, and be able to pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RPG said:

I am hearing (via a normally very reliable source) that Johnson has just tested positive for Covid-19.

We are (or should be) all on the same side here and I wish him a speedy recovery, just as I would to Corbyn if he had tested positive.

Nah, you’re alright. I won’t wish death on him but I won’t be sending any positive thoughts his way or any of that shite. He said it would be a good idea to let this virus run through the population, despite no one really knowing anything about it at the time, so I’m quite happy to let it run through him and watch how the cards land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Nah, you’re alright. I won’t wish death on him but I won’t be sending any positive thoughts his way or any of that shite. He said it would be a good idea to let this virus run through the population, despite no one really knowing anything about it at the time, so I’m quite happy to let it run through him and watch how the cards land. 

Whether or not individuals are man enough to admit it or smart enough to realise it, UK needs Johnson to lead the country through this crisis. There is a lot of talent in government but Johnson is the man that puts it all together.

So, if not for his sake, but for those whose lives he is trying to save, we had all better hope he makes a full and speedy recovery. Anything less is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPG said:

Whether or not individuals are man enough to admit it or smart enough to realise it, UK needs Johnson to lead the country through this crisis. There is a lot of talent in government but Johnson is the man that puts it all together.

So, if not for his sake, but for those whose lives he is trying to save, we had all better hope he makes a full and speedy recovery. Anything less is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But I happen to think he’s done a poor job at leading us during this time, so I wouldn’t mind in the slightest if the job fell to someone else. Someone capable would be nice, in fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

But I happen to think he’s done a poor job at leading us during this time, so I wouldn’t mind in the slightest if the job fell to someone else. Someone capable would be nice, in fact. 

Who? There really is nobody who cpuld do the job any better that I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

But I happen to think he’s done a poor job at leading us during this time, so I wouldn’t mind in the slightest if the job fell to someone else. Someone capable would be nice, in fact. 

Trouble is we’ve not had anyone capable in a decade, anywhere across the parties. I mostly agree, except so say that even someone competent couldn't do much of a better job simply due to the shitstorm of the last 10 years  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RPG said:

Who? There really is nobody who cpuld do the job any better that I can think of.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Matt said:

Trouble is we’ve not had anyone capable in a decade, anywhere across the parties. I mostly agree, except so say that even someone competent couldn't do much of a better job simply due to the shitstorm of the last 10 years  

A shitstorm that he’s been a part of, so let’s trust him to navigate us through something this big...

Not saying you trust him to do that btw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, holystove said:

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

I usually agree with you, but half of not most of them have been part of the problem over the past decade. 

Boris tried the old “tea and biscuits got us through the war” approach which was fucking stupid, but with what he had to work with, I’m not sure what else he was supposed to do (apart from learn from others but how many of the politicians actually do that?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

A shitstorm that he’s been a part of, so let’s trust him to navigate us through something this big...

Not saying you trust him to do that btw. 

See above.

And no, I don’t trust him in the slightest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, holystove said:

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

I wouldn't want a single one of them ahead of the team that is already in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, holystove said:

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

Easy list to compile if you want a team of remainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, johnh said:

Easy list to compile if you want a team of remainers.

Depending on which month it was for most of them, they’ve been all over the spectrum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, johnh said:

Easy list to compile if you want a team of remainers.

I wasn't going to comment but, yes, you are absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, johnh said:

Easy list to compile if you want a team of remainers.

Trust me John Brexiteers aren’t immune from the virus, so what ever your political persuasion people just want the right person to do the job, and if that’s a Tory remainer or brexiteer does it matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shows how much damage politicians (locally and globally) and Brexit has done to the population when there’s still such a divide in a time where the country and world needs to come together. Very sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Matt said:

Shows how much damage politicians (locally and globally) and Brexit has done to the population when there’s still such a divide in a time where the country and world needs to come together. Very sad. 

100 % I doubt at my age I will see the divide come together in what’s left of my life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

100 % I doubt at my age I will see the divide come together in what’s left of my life. 

I fear it’s the same for me and I’m only turning 37 this year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government said that the biggest problem for the country in the coming year’s, was finding the budget to look after the needs of the elderly and infirm, they have now found the solution let them die. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The government said that the biggest problem for the country in the coming year’s, was finding the budget to look after the needs of the elderly and infirm, they have now found the solution let them die. 

This is what they are doing in Spain, old peoples homes abandoned and the army finding dead bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Palfy said:

The government said that the biggest problem for the country in the coming year’s, was finding the budget to look after the needs of the elderly and infirm, they have now found the solution let them die. 

Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Chach said:

Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy.

 

Some of those elder were lambs who voted for the slaughter. People are easily brain washed but they should still be held accountable. Half a country is no better than the Germans of 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chach said:

Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy.

 

There’s a lot going on around in this world that isn’t good for a lot of people’s mental health, children being blown up in senseless wars that suits countries far away, children dying from starvation when there’s enough food in the world to feed them, do you think that people who have the powers to stop this really care about a few hundred thousand old people who can be taken off the social care program if they die. 
And it’s not half the population that are making the decisions on what is or isn’t done anywhere that I know of, so how did you come up with half the population?

And it would only be detrimental to my health physical or mental if I just ignored it, but as Pete mentioned I’m not a lamb which gives me a conscience to see the mismanagement of what’s happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Palfy said:

do you think that people who have the powers to stop this really care about a few hundred thousand old people who can be taken off the social care program if they die. 

Given our entire financial system is pretty much geared up to the passing of wealth from the younger generations to the older generations, who are probably the richest generation who have ever lived on this planet, I am thinking all evidence points to them caring.

So as a thought experiment lay it out for me, if our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life  no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chach said:

Given our entire financial system is pretty much geared up to the passing of wealth from the younger generations to the older generations, who are probably the richest generation who have ever lived on this planet, I am thinking all evidence points to them caring.

So as a thought experiment lay it out for me, if our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life  no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away.

Are you advocating letting people die until a vaccine is found because that is the cheaper option, and in this country my friend there are more pensioners living below or just above the poverty line that don’t form part of your so called richest generation. 
Obviously this may not be the case in Australia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Are you advocating letting people die until a vaccine is found because that is the cheaper option, and in this country my friend there are more pensioners living below or just above the poverty line that don’t form part of your so called richest generation. 
Obviously this may not be the case in Australia. 

How many times are you going to dodge the question Palfy,?

Lay off the emotional mind reading and lay it out:

If our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life  no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chach said:

How many times are you going to dodge the question Palfy,?

Lay off the emotional mind reading and lay it out:

If our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life  no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away.

I don’t have a magic ball and I couldn’t tell you what the world would look like in a years time even if there was no virus. 
But I will say every life is worth fighting for and the money is there, but instead we live in a society were we think it’s more acceptable to spend billions upon billions to leave the EU than save as many life’s as possible. 
So are you still advocating letting people die until such time as a vaccine is found, the good old Tory mantra of profits before life’s. 
So taking the emotional aspect out of it why would you let people die, because that’s where the clever money is, I don’t know you tell me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

 what the world would look like in a years time 

This is what I am interested in, I am not advocating for anything except what the best solution for everyone might look like.

What I do know is that our economies and financial systems have been evolving for about 10k years since the discovery of agriculture, there's certain things we need to sustain life and we have a monetary system whereby we exchange labour/time/products to get the money to buy the things we need to sustain life for ourselves and our loved ones.

It's not a perfect system because it's human but it's the one we have.

Out of that system the government takes a share redistributes it to where they think its best used to maintain things, provide a welfare safety net for people who can't get money to buy things that sustain life and to provide public services.

The thing about money is that it's not a real thing, it's a social construct and it's only worth something if you have a good system where people think your money's worth something, see Zimbabwe* for what happens when people think it's not.

If we were to stop all non essential economic activity (food and medicine) for a year the governments revenue will be decimated, governments raise money other than from tax through the issuing of debt, who would buy the debt of a country with no economy*? 

People will definitely die under that scenario also. 

We currently have a pandemic and a GFC 2.0 and currently we're staying at home, it's a good idea to slow the spread of the virus because sick people are unproductive anyway but what is the actual plan?

I don't think we can hide from it for a year without social unrest the likes of which we have never seen before, change my mind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Chach said:

This is what I am interested in, I am not advocating for anything except what the best solution for everyone might look like.

What I do know is that our economies and financial systems have been evolving for about 10k years since the discovery of agriculture, there's certain things we need to sustain life and we have a monetary system whereby we exchange labour/time/products to get the money to buy the things we need to sustain life for ourselves and our loved ones.

It's not a perfect system because it's human but it's the one we have.

Out of that system the government takes a share redistributes it to where they think its best used to maintain things, provide a welfare safety net for people who can't get money to buy things that sustain life and to provide public services.

The thing about money is that it's not a real thing, it's a social construct and it's only worth something if you have a good system where people think your money's worth something, see Zimbabwe* for what happens when people think it's not.

If we were to stop all non essential economic activity (food and medicine) for a year the governments revenue will be decimated, governments raise money other than from tax through the issuing of debt, who would buy the debt of a country with no economy*? 

People will definitely die under that scenario also. 

We currently have a pandemic and a GFC 2.0 and currently we're staying at home, it's a good idea to slow the spread of the virus because sick people are unproductive anyway but what is the actual plan?

I don't think we can hide from it for a year without social unrest the likes of which we have never seen before, change my mind.

 

 

Well you haven’t changed mine, and the world working together can achieve more than you give it credit for. 
Food and medicine are essential making cars and building houses aren’t for a year,  along with many other activities which are still happening. 
What a pointless comparison in Zimbabwe how is there any comparison to what Zimbabwe did to itself unilaterally, to what’s happening now globally, the world can help each other financially to get over this, people’s lives will be effected financially, but ask anyone who loses a family member or a good friend what’s more important saving life’s or saving a life style, you seem to think that by stopping non essential companies and trying to save every life possible the world is going to end, well don’t worry it won’t you’re taxes may go up for a number of years, you’re pension will most definitely take a big hit, but you and your family will stand a better chance to survive this which is a bonus better than being the richest man in the graveyard, because you were scared to take the tough decisions because they may or may not impact on you in a years time. 
My belief is you do what’s right now even if it has financial implications, and if that causes problems further down the line you cross them bridges when you get to them, but you don’t leave people behind to die to pay for your future  

And I don’t want try to change your mind if you can live with your decision not try and save everyone possible because of costs, then we are poles apart  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Well you haven’t changed mine, and the world working together can achieve more than you give it credit for. 
Food and medicine are essential making cars and building houses aren’t for a year,  along with many other activities which are still happening. 
What a pointless comparison in Zimbabwe how is there any comparison to what Zimbabwe did to itself unilaterally, to what’s happening now globally, the world can help each other financially to get over this, people’s lives will be effected financially, but ask anyone who loses a family member or a good friend what’s more important saving life’s or saving a life style, you seem to think that by stopping non essential companies and trying to save every life possible the world is going to end, well don’t worry it won’t you’re taxes may go up for a number of years, you’re pension will most definitely take a big hit, but you and your family will stand a better chance to survive this which is a bonus better than being the richest man in the graveyard, because you were scared to take the tough decisions because they may or may not impact on you in a years time. 
My belief is you do what’s right now even if it has financial implications, and if that causes problems further down the line you cross them bridges when you get to them, but you don’t leave people behind to die to pay for your future  

And I don’t want try to change your mind if you can live with your decision not try and save everyone possible because of costs, then we are poles apart  

 

Honestly Palfy, you've said absolutely fuck all there. The world will not run on platitudes.

Google the word "dialectic" then have a good hard look at yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chach said:

Honestly Palfy, you've said absolutely fuck all there. The world will not run on platitudes.

Google the word "dialectic" then have a good hard look at yourself.

I didn’t change your mind then to be expected really, you need to simplify things it’s not as hard as you think, you stop putting money before lives and yourself and the options become far clearer, that doing what ever it takes to stop people dying is the most important thing. 
The world and their economies will change with a changing economic situation, they always have and always will don’t panic about money it won’t be the end of us, but be concerned about this virus and try to make sure you’re government take every precaution even the hard ones that you don’t like to stop it spreading and killing more people than necessary, we may regret it if we don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2020 at 15:57, Matt said:

I usually agree with you, but half of not most of them have been part of the problem over the past decade. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, holystove said:

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.

 

That article is correct in every statement it makes, I urge all who believe BJ is the right person to steer us through this to please read the article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, holystove said:

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.

 

I don’t think she, or anyone else would, for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. Curious why you think she would though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, holystove said:

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.

Being picky the Falstaff/Henry V analogy doesn't work because Henry V was (if we're referencing Shakespeare which I'm sure the writer is) an indolent drunk and Falstaff's great mate when Prince of Wales; then he stepped up.

I'd still rather have him in charge than Trump though, like I'd rather Erich Honecker over Pol Pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Matt said:

I don’t think she, or anyone else would, for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. Curious why you think she would though?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, holystove said:

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.

She might’ve said she’d put it first, but would’ve dilly-dallied just as long whilst surrounding herself with incompetents rather than exceptionalists. The message that we can do it better than anyone was sent out years ago with the referendum.

I think Boris was using the “keep calm and carry on” approach to buy time because it was the only tool he had available. He fucked up just as pretty much any politician would’ve considering the mess the Tory’s have created over a decade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, holystove said:

May would have put fighting Corona first, Boris always weighs up if it doesn't hurt brexit.

Your right and on here it is the hardened Brexiteers who are backing him to the hilt, and if to prove my point brought Brexit into the argument in the first place. 
I think it was you that put forward a host of names that could do a better job than him, which in all honesty wasn’t hard for you to do, then straight away you were attacked on the Brexit issue, when we are talking about trying to lead the country in a responsible way against the virus, Brexiteers or more concerned it doesn’t effect Brexit in anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...