politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now partisan politics is getting back to normal and looks even

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now partisan politics is getting back to normal and looks even crazier

Sorry what? https://t.co/p6NHZHRC3k

Read the full story here

BannedinnParis

what a bunch of fruitloops.

TheScreamingEagles

Sir Graham Brady always reminds me of Tim nice but dim.

Gallowgate

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

eek

We've seen more than enough examples to know that the left wing idiots of the Labour party want an echo chamber. The party should be closing the door of the room they are in and leave them to it.

As for Graham Brady, perhaps if you hadn't so successfully scared the general public they wouldn't be so scared to go outside.

Stocky

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

Endillion

Well, that pretty much sums up some of the worst aspects of the two main parties. Sectarian bureaucrats, and hopelessly overprivileged. Both totally out of touch with ordinary people.

eek

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

contrarian

The furlough scheme is a giant and vastly expensive ruse to shelter people from the implications of the government's insane policy.

It can;t last long. And when the music stops I suspect the millions of extra unemployed will have a different view of the lockdown extension and the government.

What's next brilliant idea from this collection of overgrown children and cowards?

Extra restrictions on social distancing for a year that will ensure the economic bounceback will be of the dead cat variety.

Hectoring businesses on what they must do if they want to re-open. Many thousands simply won't

They are lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe

Stocky

eek said:

We've seen more than enough examples to know that the left wing idiots of the Labour party want an echo chamber. The party should be closing the door of the room they are in and leave them to it.

As for Graham Brady, perhaps if you hadn't so successfully scared the general public they wouldn't be so scared to go outside.

To be fair, the public were chiefly being scared by the media and what was happening in other countries, especially Italy. The government had little choice to follow other nations` responses. The public were always going to be scared because it`s so scary.

As I`ve said before the government needs to message the public in a way that represents a call to duty to get the economy back up and running. The Labour Party will no doubt be an obstacle in this aim. Interesting to see how this plays out.

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sir Graham Brady always reminds me of Tim nice but dim.

He’s half way there.

eek

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

squareroot2

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

contrarian

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

If what I read about the extra hoops businesses will have to jump through if they want to re-open, I don;t think the government has a clue.

Quite apart from the extra red tape, they are exposing businesses to a wave of 'safety' lawsuits, compensation claims and union hyperactivity.

Almost like repealing the Thatcher reforms.

Gallowgate

squareroot2 said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

That’s not what people actually say. Round here it’s more likely to be “me and me Da”.

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

eek

squareroot2 said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

Me and my Dad sounds natural,
My Dad and I sounds natural
I and my Dad makes no sense to me at all.

dr_spyn

Starmer's call for a national consensus on coronavirus fails on first test in Kingston.

contrarian

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Gallowgate

Feels like a fantastic time to purposely not have a job!

I finished my Criminal Law module yesterday when I made the finishing touches to my coursework that replaced the exam. Only 6 more modules to go!

MarqueeMark

Labour source: "We risk being made to look like sectarian idiots completely out of touch with national mood."

No risk.

TGOHF666

contrarian said:

The furlough scheme is a giant and vastly expensive ruse to shelter people from the implications of the government's insane policy.

It can;t last long. And when the music stops I suspect the millions of extra unemployed will have a different view of the lockdown extension and the government.

What's next brilliant idea from this collection of overgrown children and cowards?

Extra restrictions on social distancing for a year that will ensure the economic bounceback will be of the dead cat variety.

Hectoring businesses on what they must do if they want to re-open. Many thousands simply won't

They are lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe

The greatest single push to lift the lockdown will be when domestic and global cases and deaths continue to drop to small numbers.

Once that happens, no government can keep the lockdown in place as the public are not daft sheep who cling on their every word.

Ok maybe Scotland - but elsewhere it will not be practical. Once the Sun and the Mail have moved from NHS sainthoods to "Open the pubs and get the footie on.." then it will move and fast.

Philip_Thompson

squareroot2 said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

Shouldn't it be "my dad and I"?

The way I think about whether it should be "me" or "I" is to remove the other person and use whichever sounds right.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1257496260271013888?s=20

eek

MarqueeMark said:

Labour source: "We risk being made to look like sectarian idiots completely out of touch with national mood."

No risk.

The only risk is that Labour doesn't tell those complaining to stop being so f***ing stupid.

HYUFD

Yes, Kensington and Chelsea Labour party absurdly partisan in reprimanding a councillor for working with the Tories to deliver food parcels

Endillion

eek said:

squareroot2 said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

Me never did anything .I did ..so it is .."I and my Dad"

Me and my Dad sounds natural,
My Dad and I sounds natural
I and my Dad makes no sense to me at all.

Neither does mine.

eek

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

A lot won't.
A lot more will keep going with fewer staff.

Debt is soaring but it's still of the one off variety that you can justify and ignore. If furloughing has to continue then it becomes a problem

Philip_Thompson

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

Stark_Dawning

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more comfortable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invited Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.

DecrepiterJohnL

Nick Timothy (former May SpAd) on NHS reforms in the Telegraph. How to make the NHS more German, and it is not how you'd think.

We could have a market-based system, funded through insurance, if we so wished. But there is no evidence that the public wants this, or would tolerate the inequality in treatment it would cause. Equally, we can have a NHS, funded through general taxation. But a halfway house is doomed to fail. Instead, we have to run the NHS better.

Inevitably, this will require more funding, to allow the NHS to catch up with rising demand and allow for the reality that we have to spend more over time because there are more old people. We should also reverse much of the internal market and overturn the Lansley reforms, which increased bureaucracy and destroyed accountability. And we need to go further in improving accountability, through data transparency and a stronger inspections framework.

If we want to learn the real lessons from Germany, we should decentralise within the NHS, finding the right-sized units and structures to run it well and with better local accountability. We should seek a better balance between efficiency, and preparedness and resilience. We should improve our diagnostics capacity and increase domestic vaccine manufacturing capabilities. And we must find a funding solution for social care, which during the crisis has been shown without doubt to be in severe crisis.

So yes, the NHS will need to change, but not in the ways envisaged by the free-market reformers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/03/can-learn-germany-butnot-privatising-national-health-service/

Stocky

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

As kinabalu and I pointed out the day after Sunak`s package, the measures were open to abuse. Some companies have made a calculated decision to furlough staff rather than carry on operating (as the government envisaged that they would).

I think the government`s messaging has been misunderstood. The instruction for key workers to have their children looked after at school has been muddled with "carry on working (from home where possible)" resulting in far more people who that not key workers being furloughed or stopping work themselves (e.g. where s/e) . A few people I`ve spoken to have said things along the lines of "I`m not a key worker so I`m not working".

contrarian

TGOHF666 said:

contrarian said:

The furlough scheme is a giant and vastly expensive ruse to shelter people from the implications of the government's insane policy.

It can;t last long. And when the music stops I suspect the millions of extra unemployed will have a different view of the lockdown extension and the government.

What's next brilliant idea from this collection of overgrown children and cowards?

Extra restrictions on social distancing for a year that will ensure the economic bounceback will be of the dead cat variety.

Hectoring businesses on what they must do if they want to re-open. Many thousands simply won't

They are lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe

The greatest single push to lift the lockdown will be when domestic and global cases and deaths continue to drop to small numbers.

Once that happens, no government can keep the lockdown in place as the public are not daft sheep who cling on their every word.

Ok maybe Scotland - but elsewhere it will not be practical. Once the Sun and the Mail have moved from NHS sainthoods to "Open the pubs and get the footie on.." then it will move and fast.

I have to say I'm not sure you are right.

The nature of the government's policy is that it is difficult to ditch or retreat from quickly because the economic and social stakes are so high.

People have to be convinced that the disease was a big threat to everybody, that the hugely expensive measures were necessary and that they worked.

Philip_Thompson

Stark_Dawning said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more conformable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invite Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.

The latter sounds completely wrong. I don't know about you but I would never say "John invited I for dinner" so the addition of Mary shouldn't make it "I".

"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner"
"John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

HYUFD

contrarian said:

The furlough scheme is a giant and vastly expensive ruse to shelter people from the implications of the government's insane policy.

It can;t last long. And when the music stops I suspect the millions of extra unemployed will have a different view of the lockdown extension and the government.

What's next brilliant idea from this collection of overgrown children and cowards?

Extra restrictions on social distancing for a year that will ensure the economic bounceback will be of the dead cat variety.

Hectoring businesses on what they must do if they want to re-open. Many thousands simply won't

They are lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe

The app policy is aimed to ensure we do not have an indefinite lockdown until a vaccine is found and like South Korea can protect lives and keep the economy going

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

Yes I've heard of market powers and there is no proper market because there is no competitor to Councils.

I'm not sure where the market for competent Council leaders is. A competent Council leader wouldn't be one paying themselves ridiculously over the odds while shuttering the services they provide.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sir Graham Brady always reminds me of Tim nice but dim.

The fact that the idea of running for leader even entered his head is perhaps conclusive proof of that.

Dura_Ace

RochdalePioneers said:

Probably driven by dealerships being closed. What is interesting though is that brands are looking at how they can do an online sales model - all would quote for a vehicle but you'd then go in and haggle. If the Tesla approach of "here's the price" now becomes more widespread then what future for the theatre of going into a car showroom and having to witness sales bod having to go see the boss whilst sucking teeth whilst you push them on price?

Tesla will haggle with the best of them if you're buying from inventory rather than buying to order. I suspect the sales drones eat part of their commission to do this. Porsche are the real spartans when it comes to sticking to the list price unless it's a ridiculous spec. that they've somehow been landed with.

This week's automotive industry distress signal in my inbox was a Honda CBR1000RR SP for £419/month. I may have succumbed... Who can say no to Ohlins NPX Smart EC 2.0 forks at that price?

contrarian

Services PMI at an unprecedented 13.4.

Perhaps some might like to reconsider their estimates how many of those 'furloughed' 6.3m workers are going to keep their jobs.

Mortimer

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

GarethoftheVale2

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

Stocky

TGOHF666 said:

contrarian said:

The furlough scheme is a giant and vastly expensive ruse to shelter people from the implications of the government's insane policy.

It can;t last long. And when the music stops I suspect the millions of extra unemployed will have a different view of the lockdown extension and the government.

What's next brilliant idea from this collection of overgrown children and cowards?

Extra restrictions on social distancing for a year that will ensure the economic bounceback will be of the dead cat variety.

Hectoring businesses on what they must do if they want to re-open. Many thousands simply won't

They are lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe

The greatest single push to lift the lockdown will be when domestic and global cases and deaths continue to drop to small numbers.

Once that happens, no government can keep the lockdown in place as the public are not daft sheep who cling on their every word.

Ok maybe Scotland - but elsewhere it will not be practical. Once the Sun and the Mail have moved from NHS sainthoods to "Open the pubs and get the footie on.." then it will move and fast.

Well, that`s fine but what if in the interim, pushed by political pressure from Labour, the unions and the media, and frightened of its image, the government imposes such health and safety costs on business that they become unfeasible - as Contrarian points out.

MarqueeMark

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

Labour source: "We risk being made to look like sectarian idiots completely out of touch with national mood."

No risk.

The only risk is that Labour doesn't tell those complaining to stop being so f***ing stupid.

The only clothes some have are their "NEVER KISSED A TORY" T-shirts...

eek

Stocky said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

As kinabalu and I pointed out the day after Sunak`s package, the measures were open to abuse. Some companies have made a calculated decision to furlough staff rather than carry on operating (as the government envisaged that they would).

I think the government`s messaging has been misunderstood. The instruction for key workers to have their children looked after at school has been muddled with "carry on working (from home where possible)" resulting in far more people who that not key workers being furloughed or stopping work themselves (e.g. where s/e) . A few people I`ve spoken to have said things along the lines of "I`m not a key worker so I`m not working".

See my post below regarding the Personal Today article. If we ignore the companies abusing the scheme and still requiring people to work (Sport's Direct in yesterday's Mail, MaxPB's competitor on Sunday) a lot of companies have few reserves so couldn't risk keeping things on when demand plummeted.

I actually think we are seeing the same thing from different angles, you think the companies should have kept people working regardless, I think those companies have identified the people they need and the surplus can be binned off.

A lot of my linkedIn feed matches the latter - I've even seen Sales Consultant specialists (i.e. people who make money coaching and training sales teams and managers) that now is a very good time to identify and clear dead wood. It's actually put me off trying to recruit people as it's going to be impossible identifying people who are any good.

Dura_Ace

Philip_Thompson said:

Shouldn't it be "my dad and I"?

The way I think about whether it should be "me" or "I" is to remove the other person and use whichever sounds right.

Fucking hell. One's an object pronoun and one's a subject pronoun. Learn the difference.

Gallowgate

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Philip_Thompson

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

Completely agreed.

Morris_Dancer

When do we get confirmation that Biden is, or is not, the Democrat nominee?

eek

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

Not at the top end of the market - a lot of IT firms will happily pay for an ex Council leader to get the connections and key note speaker possibilities.

TheWhiteRabbit

contrarian said:

Services PMI at an unprecedented 13.4.

Perhaps some might like to reconsider their estimates how many of those 'furloughed' 6.3m workers are going to keep their jobs.

PMI is not the right measure for that conclusion.

PMI asks purchasing managers - rebased in effect to 100 of them - if they have grown, contracted, or stayed the same in the last month.

The last month was terrible (in the sense of widespread slowdown - PMI isn't very good at measuring depth of decline) doesn't tell us very much about a return to work.

Stark_Dawning

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more conformable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invite Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.

The latter sounds completely wrong. I don't know about you but I would never say "John invited I for dinner" so the addition of Mary shouldn't make it "I".

"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner"
"John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"

Absolutely. The best way is just to remove the 'and X' or 'X and' bit and let your ear do the rest.

Philip_Thompson

Dura_Ace said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Shouldn't it be "my dad and I"?

The way I think about whether it should be "me" or "I" is to remove the other person and use whichever sounds right.

Fucking hell. One's an object pronoun and one's a subject pronoun. Learn the difference.

*cough*

Philip_Thompson said:

"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner"
"John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"

Mortimer

contrarian said:

Services PMI at an unprecedented 13.4.

Perhaps some might like to reconsider their estimates how many of those 'furloughed' 6.3m workers are going to keep their jobs.

I suspect about 5m of the furloughed workers will keep their jobs.

How many would be unemployed without the furlough scheme? I'd suspect about 6m....the other 300k may well have died.

DavidL

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

This is inevitable. Despite the grants and guaranteed loans hundreds of thousands of small businesses have continued to rack up overhead with minimal income. They will have become balance sheet insolvent. The government has relaxed wrongful trading laws to allow them a chance to trade themselves out of it but if they have a restaurant, a café or a pub I really don't see how they do unless they can take the capital loss. They are not going to make up the loss, indeed trading profitably is going to be an enormous challenge. Someone who has given a personal guarantee to their bank should think very carefully about whether further trading is in their interests.

Stereotomy

I see Starmer has released his latest heap of absolutely nothing this morning.

DecrepiterJohnL

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

Yes I've heard of market powers and there is no proper market because there is no competitor to Councils.

I'm not sure where the market for competent Council leaders is. A competent Council leader wouldn't be one paying themselves ridiculously over the odds while shuttering the services they provide.

The competition is other councils, just like the competition for millionaire footballers comes from other football clubs. That remains true even if council leaders are unemployable in any other context.

CarlottaVance

I've watched the video - the MP is clearly trying to make it "cross party" by not mentioning her party or any other - but being clear that both the (Tory, as it happens) MP and (Labour, as it happens) Councillors are there to serve the people they represent. Well done to both - and the others who helped out. And the small minded RBKC Labour class warriors can foxtrot oscar.

eek

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

As with everyone else the rules are simple:-

You want as much as possible, while paying everyone else as little as you can get away with.

Pulpstar

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

eek

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

Yes I've heard of market powers and there is no proper market because there is no competitor to Councils.

I'm not sure where the market for competent Council leaders is. A competent Council leader wouldn't be one paying themselves ridiculously over the odds while shuttering the services they provide.

The competition is other councils, just like the competition for millionaire footballers comes from other football clubs. That remains true even if council leaders are unemployable in any other context.

And the competition arrived when budgets were being cut. A council say Manchester sees that the leader of say Leeds has managed to negotiate a set of changes saving £5m with unions so they offer him say £20k more to do the same in Manchester.

Paying even £50k-£100k to save £5m is an obvious bargain but it means that that the new market rate for a competent Council leader is now £50k more than it used to be.

The irony is that this market probably didn't even exist until Austerity kicked in and it's Austerity that has resulted in the wages of Council leaders increasing..

Richard_Tyndall

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

Yep this is absolutely right. The Government have got a lot of things wrong and one or two of them have been criminal but choosing to go for the lockdown was certainly not one of them, either from a public health or an economic point of view. At the start of all of this I was one of those suggesting we should go with what would turn out to be the Swedish route. But with hindsight I was completely wrong on that.

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

Alistair

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

US government projections of 3,000 virus deaths a day in June as it spreads into rural areas. If that is right, the long tail will ensure the Trump administration’s response to covid-19 and the inadequacies of the US healthcare system will be front and centre well into autumn.

If the US follows anything like the normal pattern that will prove to be wildly pessimistic. They may well have had peak deaths (daily) already although there will be a very long tail.

We are currently running above the 95% percentile CDC projection for deaths per day in the USA. 3000 a day in June is their mid point.

Look at the logarithmic scale for deaths in the US: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Its already almost flat. It will start to decline within a couple of weeks as the various lockdowns have greater effect and the lags work their way through.

Edit April 21st will probably have been their peak.

America deaths have been driven by New York City deaths for a while so as new york has stabalised and declined so America has slowed. But America is 50 states, there are states who are re-opening who clearly haven't got to the top of their death curve.

It is going to be carnage.

squareroot2

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Gallowgate said:

FPT

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

squareroot2 said:

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

squareroot2 said:

BigRich said:

Why I think that Swedens no-Lock-down' approach will probably have less overall deaths.

Im going to try to make this sort ish, There are lots of caviats, and so on im going to skip over in the quest for brevaty but will reply if people are intested.

Two roads to heard immunity.


Swedish is split at the movement the virus is retreating in Stockholm and the surrounding county, but growing in most of the rest of the nation. theses two combine to give a overall R of below but very close to 1. The althoratys in Sweden think that 25% of the city has had the virus.

In NYC a recent anti virus study suggested that 24.7% of NYC have also been infected,

On the day that the anti virus test was done in NYC 0.11% of the population had died. by contrast in Stockholm it was 0.06% roughly half.

Looking at the death fingers from any contrary, but Ill use the UK, 157 people under 20 have died but over 10,000 of the over 80 cohort. How many people die is as strongly related to who (by age) gets the virus as any mesher. if you could work out how to get to 'heard immunity' levels by only young and healthy people getting the virus you could get though this with only a limited number of deaths.

There is no magic bullet that will do that for you, but by doing things like keeping bars open, where lots of young people go. and recommending old and sick people stay at home as much as possible, you can shift the dynamic sufficiently to make a big difference. if you confine everybody equally then it will spread equally in all demographics, there for lots of old people will get it and die.

I'm going to predict that Sweden will when this is all over have less deaths and not have trashed its economy. but facts will only be truly comparable in perhaps 12-18 months.

I'm going with the premise that a vaccine is over 6 months away and that lock-downs can not be sustained that long. and track and trace apps will be a delaying factor not a game changer. Therefor I suspect that heard immunity is going to have to be the thing that ultimately beets the virus, not all will agree and yes New Zealand looks to have done it without but is now stuck unable to open its boarders.

#grammar police

FEWER overall deaths....

Excuse me officer, am I allowed to say something like "less than 200 MPs"?

Alastair's last lead used fewer (one time) when, under the usual logic, it should have been less - a switch you see a lot less often - and nobody said a word. Clear evidence of FEWER bias among some PB'ers.

Clarity and not sounding weird are both far more important than rigid grammar. I’m aware data is a plural word. I’ll still treat it as singular. If fewer feels more natural than less, I’ll use it without worrying too much what Fowler might say.

The example I was thinking of was a percentage. Less than 1% is usually preferred to Fewer than 1%.

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words "fewer" and "less" correctly. According to prescriptive grammar, "fewer" should be used with nouns for countable objects and concepts. According to this rule, "less" should be used only with a grammatically singular noun. 
Wikipedia

And prescriptive grammarians are full of shit.

Grammar is a study of how a language is used, not a list of rules that needs to be followed.

As the very article you are quoting states fewer vs less was a 'rule' made up in the late 1700s on the whim of one guy.

There is no textual evidence that supports the draconian application of fewer vs less that prescriptivist claim.

To me its a question of what it sounds like. You hear people say things like "Me and my Dad" and it sounds like nails on a blackboard.

And yet to me, as a 28 year old millennial, that sounds completely natural.

I think that's more of a class thing. I know all about grammatical subjects and nominative cases, but as a chav saying 'me and X did this or that' still feels the more conformable. Anyway, that construction is miles better than 'John invite Mary and I for dinner', which is the mark of an ignorant twit trying to sound posh and clever but failing.

The latter sounds completely wrong. I don't know about you but I would never say "John invited I for dinner" so the addition of Mary shouldn't make it "I".

"Mary and I invited John for dinner" . . . just like "I invited John for dinner"
"John invited me and Mary for dinner" . . . just like "John invited me for dinner"

Mary and me is correct aiui because john invited me not I..

Gallowgate

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

I've watched the video - the MP is clearly trying to make it "cross party" by not mentioning her party or any other - but being clear that both the (Tory, as it happens) MP and (Labour, as it happens) Councillors are there to serve the people they represent. Well done to both - and the others who helped out. And the small minded RBKC Labour class warriors can foxtrot oscar.

It illustrates Skyr's problem though - his party is populated by complete twats. The idea that Left and Right can work in peace and harmony delivering to a foodbank just makes their little heads explode.

Their Party deserves nothing but ridicule whilst this small-mindedness prevails.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

Stocky

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

DecrepiterJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

When do we get confirmation that Biden is, or is not, the Democrat nominee?

Biden will be formally nominated at the DNC (Democratic National Convention) which runs from 17th to 20th August. (ETA unless they change the dates again and/or move to a virtual convention owing to Covid-19).

In practice, Biden could withdraw before then or between the DNC and the election. Be aware that some and possibly all bets are settled on who is picked at the DNC and not who actually runs in November.

We'd expect Biden to announce his running mate shortly before the DNC but there is nothing to stop him doing so this afternoon if the Dems believe it will help them in the election.

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

I'm not convinced that we don't.

Mortimer

Stocky said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

Will any gym's survive?

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1257589966676393984?s=20
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1257592715941904386?s=20

OldKingCole

Gallowgate said:

Feels like a fantastic time to purposely not have a job!

I finished my Criminal Law module yesterday when I made the finishing touches to my coursework that replaced the exam. Only 6 more modules to go!

Finishing a module gives a good feeling. Enjoy.

MarqueeMark

And for political balance, Conor Burns, entitled pillock of a Conservative MP, was a complete twat too.

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

peter_from_putney

Morris_Dancer said:

When do we get confirmation that Biden is, or is not, the Democrat nominee?

Morris ... he's the only candidate isn't he? Of course if you believe otherwise, you could always lay him on the Betfair Exchange AT 1.18

Malmesbury

Mortimer said:

Stocky said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

Will any gym's survive?

They will take a massive hit from people keeping with home gym / running / cycling, initially.

With a vaccine & winter they will come roaring back.

TOPPING

Gallowgate said:

Feels like a fantastic time to purposely not have a job!

I finished my Criminal Law module yesterday when I made the finishing touches to my coursework that replaced the exam. Only 6 more modules to go!

When is the "dog ate my smartphone honest officer" module?

Mortimer

Malmesbury said:

Mortimer said:

Stocky said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

Will any gym's survive?

They will take a massive hit from people keeping with home gym / running / cycling, initially.

With a vaccine & winter they will come roaring back.

I suspect most will fall over, but will likely be reborn.

As bad is it may be to be a gym/hotel/restaurant at the moment - what I would really hate to be is a landlord for any of the above, about to lose 9 months rent and then likely have to cut new leases by as much as 75%.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

And for political balance, Conor Burns, entitled pillock of a Conservative MP, was a complete twat too.

Saw himself as a close friend of Thatcher I believe

Stocky

Mortimer said:

Stocky said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

Will any gym's survive?

Maybe not - and that would be dreadful. My gym is a family concern, delightful people who have worked so hard and with pride over "their baby" - and I feel for them. I`d go back to the gym today, it is vital for my mental wellbeing and self-esteem. Off the top of my hat I`d guess that 50% of gym members would feel similarly. But this is insufficient to keep the business going by a country mile.

Richard_Tyndall

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

Sorry did you say 'end up'?

You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.

OldKingCole

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Missing family a lot. Especially last week...... Grandson's birthday. And the prospect of later this week...... My birthday.

Also sitting in the pub with friends having a (draught) beer.

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I agree, if councils are cutting costs and making staff redundant and capping wages then council executives should cut their pay first, the same as ceos and directors in the private sector should cut their pay before making staff redundant or reducing wages of those lower down the good chain

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Putney, already hedged so I'm green either way

Stereotomy

Philip_Thompson said:

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one.

Yeah I'm sure if google doubled their executive salaries we'd all have switched over to using Ask Jeeves within the month.

CarlottaVance

Interesting stuff from SAGE:

The daily YouGov survey commissioned by the Cabinet Office for the 29-30 March suggests that only 13% of the population are going to their place of work as much as usual, 84% have entirely stopped seeing members of their family who do not live with them and 91% have entirely stopped seeing friends.....There is evidence that these behavioural changes began to appear in mid-March and steadily improved over time..

The 3rd area they considered has been redacted entirely.

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

And for political balance, Conor Burns, entitled pillock of a Conservative MP, was a complete twat too.

Saw himself as a close friend of Thatcher I believe

Mark, presumably...

contrarian

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Philip_Thompson

Stereotomy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one.

Yeah I'm sure if google doubled their executive salaries we'd all have switched over to using Ask Jeeves within the month.

Did you miss the words "slashing its services"?

If Google started slashing its services while doubling their salaries then yes I think we would be looking at competitors.

Mortimer

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

And as I explained, that argument is based on flawed logic.

Gallowgate

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

If a good Council leader is paid under the market rate, they will be poached by the private sector for a much higher salary. You’ll end up with numpties running councils.

Sorry did you say 'end up'?

You clearly haven't had a close look at the current crop of council leaders around the country.

So you’re saying the free market is a poor judge of value? Interesting.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

contrarian

Stocky said:

Mortimer said:

Stocky said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be glad to see family and friends.
Pubs, flights abroad, restaurants, any sort of indoor leisure ?
Sod that.

Washing your hands is still vital and can protect adequately in many scenarios which may sound dangerous. Even in a gym you can take care not to touch your face and wash hands properly afterwards. We must recover a sense of perspective over these things and be sensible with cleanliness which may prove to be more important than many aspects of social distancing.

Will any gym's survive?

Maybe not - and that would be dreadful. My gym is a family concern, delightful people who have worked so hard and with pride over "their baby" - and I feel for them. I`d go back to the gym today, it is vital for my mental wellbeing and self-esteem. Off the top of my hat I`d guess that 50% of gym members would feel similarly. But this is insufficient to keep the business going by a country mile.

I don't imagine the government's new 'social distancing' guidelines for a year would encourage either provider or customer. Quite the opposite

Gallowgate

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Feels like a fantastic time to purposely not have a job!

I finished my Criminal Law module yesterday when I made the finishing touches to my coursework that replaced the exam. Only 6 more modules to go!

When is the "dog ate my smartphone honest officer" module?

Oh passed that one with flying colours. The answer is of course an immediate and indefinite prison sentence at @HYUFD ’s pleasure.

Philip_Thompson

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

Gallowgate

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Yeah I personally think the Prime Minister is criminally underpaid. Should be at least hitting 500k. It is arguably the most important job in the country.

Stocky

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

Well - it is if you agree that he capital must be paid back at some point. How many future generations?

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

FPT

RochdalePioneers said:

We were going to make cuts - don't forget that the Labour manifesto in 2010 would have spent slightly less than the coalition did.

As I have been pointing out the problem wasn't cutting spending but what was cut and how.

When the Tory PM writes to his Tory council leader saying look here, why are you cutting front line services when we have made all this money available to you, the council leader details no you haven't, and number 10 responds yes we have that's the austerity problem in a single example.

It's not enough to say "we spent more on the NHS". What did you spend it on in the NHS? More money spent but savage cuts to provision shows money being syphoned off to more traditional Tory causes like consultants and lawyers and pointless layers of management.

The fact was that the Government didn't notice they had both increased the demands on the council and yet decreased the money available. As a simplified example to show the actual issue:-

Previously:
Government Adult Social care £10m
Council expenditure £10m
Total available £20m

After reforms:
Council Expenditure £15m
Total available: £15m

Osbourne and Cameron's Government sat there and said we've given you £5m more a year but ignored the fact they are increased Council required Expenditure by £10m.

Are Councils required to pay themselves more than the Prime Minister gets paid?

Ever heard of market powers? Once one council starts paying over the odds to poach a leader from another council it becomes inevitable...

Guess what happened in the market for competent Council leaders.

If you consider that very few people switch from the public to the private sector, the Government should set national pay bands for councils and force top salaries down.

I thought Conservatives believed in free market capitalism? I’m confused.

Absolutely. We believe in capitalism.

There is no free market there. People taking taxes by force of the law and giving it in largesse to themselves while whining they haven't got enough money and cutting services is not free market capitalism.

If it was a free market company that was slashing its services while paying over the odds to its Chief Executives a competitor that was leaner would arise and people would take their consumption and expenditure to that one. That can't happen with taxes though. Appeals to some 'market' are absurd.

A good Council leader would be one who lives within the budget they have, getting their best results possible and being paid accordingly. Not slashing services and being paid well over the odds.

You assume there is an infinite supply of people able to put up with crap from Councillors and willing to lead councils. My view is that there is a finite supply of such people, and an even smaller supply of competent and the demand for such competent people is far greater than the actual supply.

And what evidence do you have for that proposition?

My view is that it is a pampered, unaffordable luxury to be paying county staff more than the Prime Minister of the country - and if you can afford to do that then there hasn't been enough austerity yet.

I would suggest thinking about what the job entails and then deciding that. A lot of the highest paid chief executives are actually running 2 or more councils.

Oh and remember the only reason why the PM's pay is what it is, is because Gordon Brown pulled a fast one in the days before the 2010 election and hadn't taken the full amount before then.

Blair was on the 2010 equivalent of £190,000 see https://fullfact.org/law/how-much-does-prime-minister-get-paid/

Indeed but Blair was when the government was spending far, far too much money. At least from 2002 onwards.

Given that Councils have needed to cut their cloth since then they should have done that from the top. If they can't afford an executive so be it, say goodbye to them and hire someone they can afford. Brighton and Hove Albion have no divine right to afford the wages of Virgil van Dijk.

If Councils can afford to pay ludicrously high wages then their budgets are still full of largesse and can be cut further.

Philip_Thompson

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Stocky said:

Brady is right, but some companies have driven this. The government advice was to carry on working (from home where possible). The government is aware of the perplexing problem that it has in getting the economy going again.

What companies? Some sectors where closed down and that has had a cascading impact on the rest of the economy. I'm really not aware of a single company not impacted in some way.

Sunik's fear will be the fact that companies are discovering they can manage just fine without their furloughed staff. Some firms seem to have noticed that as Personal Today had an article last week pointing out that you can use Furlough money to pay redundancy payments.

Sunak's fear is that many thousands of smaller businesses simply won;t re-open.

The tax base is being destroyed at the same time as debt is soaring.

Indeed. Prematurely lifting the lockdown will ensure those smaller businesses won't reopen or will reopen, find they have no customers and shutter permanently.

Ideally lifting the lockdown should coincide with when the public is confident, willing and eager to go out.

contarian's logic is fundamentally flawed, because the choice wasn't between economic problems with the lockdown vs sweetness and light without it.

It was a choice between economic problems with the lockdown (and to be clear, I don't underplay it) all the associated costs and economic armageddon combined with health service failure without it.

The lockdown is inordinately expensive, but affordable at a push. Not having it would have resulted in ruin.

I you actually read my posts you would see that I have never argued that our economy would not take a bad hit whatever the circumstances. Of course it would.

The thrust of my argument is that the government's policy has made the hit far, far worse than it needed to be economically, and the argument that it has 'saved lives' is at least questionable and possibly completely bogus.

Except you have provided zero evidence for why the hit is "far, far, worse than it needed to be economically".

Why is the government paying businesses primary cost (wages) via virtually interest-free borrowing an economic hit?

Well - it is if you agree that he capital must be paid back at some point. How many future generations?

I do not accept that. When has the country ever repaid its capital borrowing?