Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Why do you want to sleep during a train journey?? You'll miss the sights and scenery!
You also save a night's lodging. Sleeper sound OK pandemic-wise IF you are talking about a single or double with a significant other. However, only time yours truly took sleep (Turin to Paris) was with 7 other weary travelers. Was rather close quarters (in more ways than one) today would be like getting into a petri dish.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Down ticket races tend to have much higher "don't knows", so using the topline figures is very misleading.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Wasn't the recent "anti-mask" rally in London attended by more middle-aged and older people?
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Couldn't it be argued, that for all the rhetoric re: "responsibility" one of the central messages of Thatcher was, competition to the fullest, and the devil take the hindmost?
The polling suggests Starmer has a better chance of gaining some southern and London Tory Remain and soft Leave seats like Chingford and Woodford Green, Hendon, Watford and Wycombe thsn he does strong Leave seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich the Tories gained from Labour last year
One of the strange things about the CV-19 pandemic is that it makes some people - often otherwise sensible and intelligent people - throw up their hands and say "it's all too complicated".
CV-19 is a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. Yes, the virus has a specific shape - the so-called "crown" or corona - but it is still a viral infection that works by hijacking our cells to produce itself, and spreads itself in exactly the same way as any other respiratory viral infection.
That is, droplets are expelled by people through their mouth and nose. Sometimes those droplets are tiny (so called aerosol transmission). Sometimes those droplets are larger.
The reason we cough and sneeze when we have these kind of infections is because viruses have evolved to encourage the body to have these responses. A virus that makes you cough or sneeze is more likely to spread.
None of this stuff is new.
If you have CV-19, whether you know it or not, then you will be less likely to spread it if you wear a mask. This is because (a) larger droplets will be caught in the mask, (b) smaller ones - if they make it through - will travel less far, and (c) because you are much less likely to transfer droplets with the virus from your mouth to your hand and therefore to other surfaces.
Masks are no panacea, however. Short of a vaccine, there is no silver bullet. Even if worn properly by all, they don't stop 100% of transmission. But they do reduce it.
If you allow nightclubs to reopen when a meaningful number of people have CV-19, then all the mask wearing in shops, won't stop a second wave. Nor does a second wave mean the masks didn't work. It means that there were other vectors of infection.
And the more vectors of infection you allow, the higher R is, and the more people get infected.
If what you are saying isn;t new and it isn;t difficult then why come the recommendations and laws are only here now and not at the beginning of the pandemic or even the middle of the pandemic?
Snip
Because our Government suffers from both an ideological aversion to such measures (and on this I generally agree with them although there comes a point when you have to accept things are necessary) and is also just pretty bloody incompetent.
It hasn't helped that the WHO has been so back and forth on masks. They are another organisation that has fared badly in this crisis.
I listened to a bit of Radio 4 tonight. This news story about the disproportionate number of BAME people fined for breaking covid-19 restrictions was featured on a couple of bulletins: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52905787
The essence of the story delivered was that BAME people had been unfairly targeted by police, evidently due to racism.
I find it disturbing to say the least that the automatic assumption from our state broadcaster is that this outcome was due to the racism of our police service, not that, for whatever reason, failing to follow lockdown guidance was more frequent proportionately amongst BAME individuals than white ones, leading to more fines.
The word 'overpoliced' was used in the report. It's a rather depressing word, given that, if widely adopted, crime statistics amongst individuals from certain communities become 'overpolicing' statistics, and the police are berated simply for doing their job. It is the worst type of sticking plaster solution, and it stimulates criminality where none existed before. It is immensely damaging to those communities it is aimed at placating, and their neighbourhoods.
Cummings. The more powerful you are the less the restrictions are enforced. The more vulnerable you are the more the restrictions are enforced. One rule for one, another rule for others.
I can't really do an "all time" England XI. I have only been watching cricket for the last 50 years or so. So here is my England Select XI of the last 50 years -
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Couldn't it be argued, that for all the rhetoric re: "responsibility" one of the central messages of Thatcher was, competition to the fullest, and the devil take the hindmost?
Not if you actually read what she said instead of just the clips that the left like to snip out, no.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Down ticket races tend to have much higher "don't knows", so using the topline figures is very misleading.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
My fearless prediction is, that gap will grow in 2020.
Out here in Washington State, Trumpsky is a sure loser. Whereas there is still one statewide elected Republican - WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman - who has a chance of survival this fall.
Note that Wyman's campaign consists of DISASSOCIATING herself as much as possible from Trumpsky without actually denouncing him.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Wasn't the recent "anti-mask" rally in London attended by more middle-aged and older people?
About 80 people according to the news reports I saw. Not exactly representative of anything except the fact there is a lunatic fringe.
I can't really do an "all time" England XI. I have only been watching cricket for the last 50 years or so. So here is my England Select XI of the last 50 years -
Atherton Boycott Tavare Trott Hussein Collingwood
zzzzzzz
sorry, fell asleep there
Collingwood may have been a fairly dull batsman and bowler, but his fielding was simply extraordinary.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Down ticket races tend to have much higher "don't knows", so using the topline figures is very misleading.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
Very True. I just checked and Trump isn't out performing the Generic congressional ballot as much as I thought he was. He's only a half point clear, I thought he was 2 points clear.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Down ticket races tend to have much higher "don't knows", so using the topline figures is very misleading.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
My fearless prediction is, that gap will grow in 2020.
Out here in Washington State, Trumpsky is a sure loser. Whereas there is still one statewide elected Republican - WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman - who has a chance of survival this fall.
Note that Wyman's campaign consists of DISASSOCIATING herself as much as possible from Trumpsky without actually denouncing him.
(I would note that my "incumbent Republicans" metric ignores Utah where Romney outpolled Trump by about 20 points...)
Three months' slippage in 10 days... sure sign of a failing project.
Someone reminded him that the strategy is to bury the economic disaster of No Deal under the virus radar, so all being normal by xmas would actually be bad news for Johnson.
RCS, so how confident are you that LA County Elections office will NOT screw up the general like they did the primary.
Note that the LA election supervisor is the same ass who screwed up elections in King County, WA back in 2004. LA Co supervisors must be dumb as a box or rocks to hire a busted flush like him.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Down ticket races tend to have much higher "don't knows", so using the topline figures is very misleading.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
My fearless prediction is, that gap will grow in 2020.
Out here in Washington State, Trumpsky is a sure loser. Whereas there is still one statewide elected Republican - WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman - who has a chance of survival this fall.
Note that Wyman's campaign consists of DISASSOCIATING herself as much as possible from Trumpsky without actually denouncing him.
(I would note that my "incumbent Republicans" metric ignores Utah where Romney outpolled Trump by about 20 points...)
Utah very special case, as Church formerly called Mormon crossed Trumpsky off their dance card from the get-go. Of course many rank & file ignored the wishes of their hierarchy (similar to Catholics) in Utah & elsewhere, but still cut into The Donald's numbers.
RCS, so how confident are you that LA County Elections office will NOT screw up the general like they did the primary.
Note that the LA election supervisor is the same ass who screwed up elections in King County, WA back in 2004. LA Co supervisors must be dumb as a box or rocks to hire a busted flush like him.
I think it's unlikely that this election will hinge on the results of California, so I'm currently unconcerned.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
I'm less convinced it's wholly generational though the point some of the young consider themselves indestructible is often a facet of youth.
How has this disconnection between the "young" and the "old" been allowed to flourish or has it always been there? Could it be down to the inter-generational physical dislocation in families - how many families have elder relatives living with younger family members? I suspect it happens less frequently than thirty or forty years ago.
Perhaps in the new thinking on the provision of adult social care, instead of starting the tax with those aged over 40, perhaps we should tax everyone on the basis we will all be old some day (hopefully) or is this part of the "social engineering" of encouraging home ownership before retirement provision?
I'm also thinking it has to do with death - we don't normally think about or encounter death, certainly not in the way we did several decades ago. We don't talk about it though it's the one thing which unites us all.
The polling suggests Starmer has a better chance of gaining some southern and London Tory Remain and soft Leave seats like Chingford and Woodford Green, Hendon, Watford and Wycombe thsn he does strong Leave seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich the Tories gained from Labour last year
I think the big thing about Starmer is that he is not frightening - at least not yet.
It is vanishingly unlikely that I would ever vote Labour because of my personal ideology. But at the same time a Starmer led Labour party - if it develops in the way that he seems to be leading it - does not frighten me in the way a Corbyn led Labour party did.
Obviously it is a long way away, but if the worst a Labour victory in 2024 would drag out of me is an annoyed shrug and 5 years of grumbling then I can see that for millions of people who would never have considered voting for Corbyn, Starmer is probably going to be a far more attractive proposition.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Whilst much of what you say is true I am not sure it is fair or balanced. It is also mostly the young who have been expected to work and commute throughout, who are exposed to the worst financial situations, who are most impacted by the restrictions on forming new relationships and friendships. All this on the back of a decade where their economic and political interests have been ignored by governments backed by the pensioner mass voting bloc.
If I was fortunate enough to be their age Id be doing the same and wouldnt apologise for it.
Trump lost all the 2016 debates and still won, the debates don't seem to make much difference now e.g. Kerry and Romney both won the first 2004 and 2012 debates
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Whilst much of what you say is true I am not sure it is fair or balanced. It is also mostly the young who have been expected to work and commute throughout, who are exposed to the worst financial situations, who are most impacted by the restrictions on forming new relationships and friendships. All this on the back of a decade where their economic and political interests have been ignored by governments backed by the pensioner mass voting bloc.
If I was fortunate enough to be their age Id be doing the same and wouldnt apologise for it.
The politics of envy, revenge and the very individualist creed Stodge was talking about.
U of Michigan bowed out months ago. Also cited COVID, but methinks real reason is fear that Trumpsky's presence would draw protesters and could spark rioting, mostly provoked by Trumpsky's overt & covert supporters.
As for what would be best for Biden, with notable exception of some 2020 primary debates, he has a GOOD record as a debater - just ask Judge Bork & Sarah Pallin.
On other hand, safety first strategy would seem to indicated skipping debates IF that's an option. Which I don't think it is. AND if it is, far better that any onus for cancelling be on Trump.
One of the strange things about the CV-19 pandemic is that it makes some people - often otherwise sensible and intelligent people - throw up their hands and say "it's all too complicated".
CV-19 is a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. Yes, the virus has a specific shape - the so-called "crown" or corona - but it is still a viral infection that works by hijacking our cells to produce itself, and spreads itself in exactly the same way as any other respiratory viral infection.
That is, droplets are expelled by people through their mouth and nose. Sometimes those droplets are tiny (so called aerosol transmission). Sometimes those droplets are larger.
The reason we cough and sneeze when we have these kind of infections is because viruses have evolved to encourage the body to have these responses. A virus that makes you cough or sneeze is more likely to spread.
None of this stuff is new.
If you have CV-19, whether you know it or not, then you will be less likely to spread it if you wear a mask. This is because (a) larger droplets will be caught in the mask, (b) smaller ones - if they make it through - will travel less far, and (c) because you are much less likely to transfer droplets with the virus from your mouth to your hand and therefore to other surfaces.
Masks are no panacea, however. Short of a vaccine, there is no silver bullet. Even if worn properly by all, they don't stop 100% of transmission. But they do reduce it.
If you allow nightclubs to reopen when a meaningful number of people have CV-19, then all the mask wearing in shops, won't stop a second wave. Nor does a second wave mean the masks didn't work. It means that there were other vectors of infection.
And the more vectors of infection you allow, the higher R is, and the more people get infected.
If what you are saying isn;t new and it isn;t difficult then why come the recommendations and laws are only here now and not at the beginning of the pandemic or even the middle of the pandemic?
Snip
Because our Government suffers from both an ideological aversion to such measures (and on this I generally agree with them although there comes a point when you have to accept things are necessary) and is also just pretty bloody incompetent.
It hasn't helped that the WHO has been so back and forth on masks. They are another organisation that has fared badly in this crisis.
People have also taken the WHO out of context at times. So @NerysHughes quoted Director Mike Ryan as saying:
"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,"
Which seems pretty clear cut against mask wearing, right?
But then he continued: "There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage, Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."
So, a lot of the impetus - in the UK and at the WHO level - in not encouraging mask wearing was about the fact that frontline workers needed masks. That last line is the - errr - killer to me: The thought of them not having masks is horrific.
The polling suggests Starmer has a better chance of gaining some southern and London Tory Remain and soft Leave seats like Chingford and Woodford Green, Hendon, Watford and Wycombe thsn he does strong Leave seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich the Tories gained from Labour last year
I think the big thing about Starmer is that he is not frightening - at least not yet.
It is vanishingly unlikely that I would ever vote Labour because of my personal ideology. But at the same time a Starmer led Labour party - if it develops in the way that he seems to be leading it - does not frighten me in the way a Corbyn led Labour party did.
Obviously it is a long way away, but if the worst a Labour victory in 2024 would drag out of me is an annoyed shrug and 5 years of grumbling then I can see that for millions of people who would never have considered voting for Corbyn, Starmer is probably going to be a far more attractive proposition.
True but I would say a middle class Remain voter or a Leave voter who would be happy to stay in the single market who voted for Cameron and May is far more likely to vote for Starmer than a working class Leave voter who switched from Labour to Tory for the first time in 2019 specifically to vote for Brexit and Boris
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
I'm less convinced it's wholly generational though the point some of the young consider themselves indestructible is often a facet of youth.
How has this disconnection between the "young" and the "old" been allowed to flourish or has it always been there? Could it be down to the inter-generational physical dislocation in families - how many families have elder relatives living with younger family members? I suspect it happens less frequently than thirty or forty years ago.
Perhaps in the new thinking on the provision of adult social care, instead of starting the tax with those aged over 40, perhaps we should tax everyone on the basis we will all be old some day (hopefully) or is this part of the "social engineering" of encouraging home ownership before retirement provision?
I'm also thinking it has to do with death - we don't normally think about or encounter death, certainly not in the way we did several decades ago. We don't talk about it though it's the one thing which unites us all.
I would say the disconnect has always been there - just look back at the era of 'Look Back In Anger' or the Counter Culture of the 1960s. In the first half of the last century it was disrupted by 2 wars but since then it seems to me that every generation has looked with scorn to a greater or lesser extent at those who have gone before them. And then reacted with amazement and anger when they are subject to it from the next generation down.
Hey guys just dropping in to say I’m watching Once Upon a Time in Iraq on the iPlayer and I highly recommend you invest five hours of your time in it. It is a superb documentary examining the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its bloody aftermath. Best thing I’ve watched for a long time.
Trump lost all the 2016 debates and still won, the debates don't seem to make much difference now e.g. Kerry and Romney both won the first 2004 and 2012 debates
One bad debate performance likely defeated Gerald Ford in very close race. And while Romney clearly won first debate with Obama, not so sure that Trump lost his debates with Hillary. Maybe on technical debating points, but NOT in terms of actual impact on final voters decisions.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Whilst much of what you say is true I am not sure it is fair or balanced. It is also mostly the young who have been expected to work and commute throughout, who are exposed to the worst financial situations, who are most impacted by the restrictions on forming new relationships and friendships. All this on the back of a decade where their economic and political interests have been ignored by governments backed by the pensioner mass voting bloc.
If I was fortunate enough to be their age Id be doing the same and wouldnt apologise for it.
The politics of envy, revenge and the very individualist creed Stodge was talking about.
Very unpleasant
Through Brexit the country has found out that if you leave a lot of people out of societies opportunities eventually it causes instability and problems that cant be ignored. We are making the same mistake with the young across the nation, if we do not create opportunities for them to share in society we cannot expect them to fully respect it.
RCS, so how confident are you that LA County Elections office will NOT screw up the general like they did the primary.
Note that the LA election supervisor is the same ass who screwed up elections in King County, WA back in 2004. LA Co supervisors must be dumb as a box or rocks to hire a busted flush like him.
I think it's unlikely that this election will hinge on the results of California, so I'm currently unconcerned.
Granted not of direct concern re: presidential outcome. BUT still no fuqing way to run a railroad - or conduct a free & fair election.
Also quite enjoying the Boris "I'm only 5 foot 10" height hyperbole.
That 10 is measured in 7ths of an inch.
According to Guido, Mr Macron is 5' 6 and a half
I can only but assume that the very fact that he used the words 'at the outside' meant he was exagerrating for fun. Speaking as someone who is 5'7, everyone knows you only add an additional inch when lying about your height.
Also quite enjoying the Boris "I'm only 5 foot 10" height hyperbole.
That 10 is measured in 7ths of an inch.
According to Guido, Mr Macron is 5' 6 and a half
I can only but assume that the very fact that he used the words 'at the outside' meant he was exagerrating for fun. Speaking as someone who is 5'7, everyone knows you only add an additional inch when lying about your height.
Not just your height..
And the baited trap succeeds
Bicep circumference, naturlich!
(I actually have a pal who has measured his 'guns').
Why do you want to sleep during a train journey?? You'll miss the sights and scenery!
You also save a night's lodging. Sleeper sound OK pandemic-wise IF you are talking about a single or double with a significant other. However, only time yours truly took sleep (Turin to Paris) was with 7 other weary travelers. Was rather close quarters (in more ways than one) today would be like getting into a petri dish.
Never been on a sleeper as such but been on a couple of full overnight seated services : Milan-Paris (with a trunk, en route to Manchester) and Sendai-Hakodate (one leg of a couple of days spent heading from Tokyo-Sapporo)
Why do you want to sleep during a train journey?? You'll miss the sights and scenery!
You also save a night's lodging. Sleeper sound OK pandemic-wise IF you are talking about a single or double with a significant other. However, only time yours truly took sleep (Turin to Paris) was with 7 other weary travelers. Was rather close quarters (in more ways than one) today would be like getting into a petri dish.
Never been on a sleeper as such but been on a couple of full overnight seated services : Milan-Paris (with a trunk, en route to Manchester) and Sendai-Hakodate (one leg of a couple of days spent heading from Tokyo-Sapporo)
Hey guys just dropping in to say I’m watching Once Upon a Time in Iraq on the iPlayer and I highly recommend you invest five hours of your time in it. It is a superb documentary examining the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its bloody aftermath. Best thing I’ve watched for a long time.
It's excellent. A good reminder what incompetent assholes Bush et al were, just in case the current incumbent is encouraging rose tinted spectacles.
Why do you want to sleep during a train journey?? You'll miss the sights and scenery!
You also save a night's lodging. Sleeper sound OK pandemic-wise IF you are talking about a single or double with a significant other. However, only time yours truly took sleep (Turin to Paris) was with 7 other weary travelers. Was rather close quarters (in more ways than one) today would be like getting into a petri dish.
Never been on a sleeper as such but been on a couple of full overnight seated services : Milan-Paris (with a trunk, en route to Manchester) and Sendai-Hakodate (one leg of a couple of days spent heading from Tokyo-Sapporo)
I think the big thing about Starmer is that he is not frightening - at least not yet.
It is vanishingly unlikely that I would ever vote Labour because of my personal ideology. But at the same time a Starmer led Labour party - if it develops in the way that he seems to be leading it - does not frighten me in the way a Corbyn led Labour party did.
Obviously it is a long way away, but if the worst a Labour victory in 2024 would drag out of me is an annoyed shrug and 5 years of grumbling then I can see that for millions of people who would never have considered voting for Corbyn, Starmer is probably going to be a far more attractive proposition.
Clearly, we will need to see what the Labour offering in 2024 amounts to. A non-ideological, pragmatic programme of Government not too far removed from the Conservatives will cause Johnson (who will have a record to defend and unfulfilled commitments to explain) some issues.
That doesn't mean rehashed Blairism but Starmer, like Blair, will be anxious not to frighten the voters. If we have three or four years of pragmatic Opposition, it will also be harder for the Conservatives to portray Starmer as a feckless radical.
Starmer has started well and he clearly isn't Corbyn by any stretch of imagination. He may have some issues with some of Corbyn's fellow travellers but after 14 years out of power Labour will want to look like a serious credible alternative Government. The prospect of power does wonders for unity and discipline.
Last September we went Nottingham to Plymouth to St Austell to Penzance all on train then caught the overnight sleeper from Penzance to London Paddington taxi to St Pancas then home on train then tram.8 days in total and enjoyed it.
FTP SeaShantyIrish2 said: ' OT - Think this poll shows something similar to US post-2016, namely that voters who were once part of the Democratic working class base but who defected to Trumpsky are NOT likely to desert him anytime soon. Or at least NOT among the mostly likely.
Think this is part of tipping-point psychology. When voters change their basic voting intention away from a traditional allegiance, in a way that evidence (polling, demographics, electoral trends) shows has been building for some time - well, they simply are NOT going to switch back due to some bumps, or even humongous potholes - down the road they've recently chosen.'
But a lot of Republicans voted for LBJ in 1964 yet reverted to supporting Nixon in 1968 and 1972.Many Reagan Democrats voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.In the UK many Tories who voted Labour in 1966 were Tory voters again in 1970.Former Tories who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 have generally long returned to their original home.I personally know several people who voted for Thatcher in 1979 but never voted Tory again.
Republicanism and Trumpism are not the same thing and it is highly questionable how much overlap there is.
I suspect a lot of traditional Republicans will not support Trump this time round even if they did last time. The prospect of four years of Biden would not worry them as much as another four years of Trump.
Unless there is some dramatic development over the next 100 days, Joe is going to walk it.
But Trump is out performing the down ticket races in the main.
Source?
Texas is the exception tto that although Trump should win Texas too.
The polling suggests Starmer has a better chance of gaining some southern and London Tory Remain and soft Leave seats like Chingford and Woodford Green, Hendon, Watford and Wycombe thsn he does strong Leave seats like Grimsby and West Bromwich the Tories gained from Labour last year
Tory vote has been really robust in Hendon despite it voting 58% remain so I'd be cautious there although it is winnable by heavily squeezing the LD vote and getting a very small no. Of Tory remainers.
I agree with the general point though that Con-Lab seats with a decent LD vote like Truro, Southport, Watford, Wycombe and even Altrincham at a push are more winnable than some red wall seats at the next election.
Although I think West Bromwich East still goes back to Labour next time if the Tory lead is less than 5% nationally as I think Labour loss there was more due to low turnout. The Tory vote only went up 2K there and the Labour vote was down 7K.
I listened to a bit of Radio 4 tonight. This news story about the disproportionate number of BAME people fined for breaking covid-19 restrictions was featured on a couple of bulletins: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52905787
The essence of the story delivered was that BAME people had been unfairly targeted by police, evidently due to racism.
I find it disturbing to say the least that the automatic assumption from our state broadcaster is that this outcome was due to the racism of our police service, not that, for whatever reason, failing to follow lockdown guidance was more frequent proportionately amongst BAME individuals than white ones, leading to more fines.
The word 'overpoliced' was used in the report. It's a rather depressing word, given that, if widely adopted, crime statistics amongst individuals from certain communities become 'overpolicing' statistics, and the police are berated simply for doing their job. It is the worst type of sticking plaster solution, and it stimulates criminality where none existed before. It is immensely damaging to those communities it is aimed at placating, and their neighbourhoods.
Cummings. The more powerful you are the less the restrictions are enforced. The more vulnerable you are the more the restrictions are enforced. One rule for one, another rule for others.
Let's say for a minute that's true. If you were a member of a BAME community (perhaps you are, I'm not assuming), would you be unhappy that those in your own community were being 'overpoliced' for breaking lockdown rules? Would you really prefer 'underpolicing'? Underpolicing would put you at greater risk of catching the disease. Overpolicing would help protect you.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Couldn't it be argued, that for all the rhetoric re: "responsibility" one of the central messages of Thatcher was, competition to the fullest, and the devil take the hindmost?
"Is he one of us?" was Maggies giveaway question. She only cared for those on her side. She hated what she saw as the enemy within. She was deliberately divisive in a way unusual at that time. The fissure she created in British life has echoes to this day, and is why she remains such a divisive figure. People are rarely neutral about her.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Couldn't it be argued, that for all the rhetoric re: "responsibility" one of the central messages of Thatcher was, competition to the fullest, and the devil take the hindmost?
"Is he one of us?" was Maggies giveaway question. She only cared for those on her side. She hated what she saw as the enemy within. She was deliberately divisive in a way unusual at that time. The fissure she created in British life has echoes to this day, and is why she remains such a divisive figure. People are rarely neutral about her.
"Texas is the exception tto that although Trump should win Texas too."
Lone Star State indeed exceptional in many respects, but not sure what you mean in this case?
Incumbent GOP Gov Abbott will almost certainly run ahead of Trumpky. However, also note that Democrats are likely to capture the state house for first time in a generation or thereabouts.
In north Seattle temperature now 99F in the sun just outside my cabin door, in-shade temp 91F, in-door temp 78F. Luckily humidity is only 38%.
Eastern WA weather is paying us a visit this side of the Cascades. However, starting tomorrow the Pacific Ocean starts pushing it back - humidity will go up some BUT temp will drop to more normal (for this time of year here) upper 70s F.
Anecdotal experience from the wild East of London this lunchtime.
Tesco's - I'd say 75% observance of masks in-store but no staff challenging those not wearing them.
Part of me wonders if resistance to mask wearing is cultural - I have a sense in America refusal to wear masks seems to go hand-in-hand with strong religious beliefs or with belief in conspiracy theories around "one world" Government.
I'm also interested in those anti-mask wearers who witter on about their "freedom" and their "rights". This is where I part company with that part of the spectrum - I think Freedom FROM is more important than Freedom TO. Wearing a mask so we can all be free from the virus seems far more important than my right to wear or not wear a mask.
Margaret Thatcher spoke about personal responsibility but I think she always saw that in the context of everyone taking their share of responsibility for the wider community. The problem is after 40 years it has been distorted into a highly individualist creed where responsibility begins and ends with you and perhaps your family and there is no sense of any obligation to a wider grouping.
The mask wearing law is unenforceable (we know that) so it requires that wider sense of collective responsibility.
I think the second part of this analysis is seriously wrong. You are right that Thatcher's creed was one of responsibility starting at the individual and working up into the community. And I think that is still a creed that is overwhelmingly understood and accepted by those who were around at the time and most of those who have followed on whatever their political persuasion.
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Couldn't it be argued, that for all the rhetoric re: "responsibility" one of the central messages of Thatcher was, competition to the fullest, and the devil take the hindmost?
"Is he one of us?" was Maggies giveaway question. She only cared for those on her side. She hated what she saw as the enemy within. She was deliberately divisive in a way unusual at that time. The fissure she created in British life has echoes to this day, and is why she remains such a divisive figure. People are rarely neutral about her.
That is true but Mrs Thatcher was also proud of the increase in charitable giving during the early stages of her government and later disappointed that it had not gone further -- she had given entrepreneurs their head and expected them to become Good Samaritans -- like Theresa May and Gordon Brown, she was (as good as) a daughter of the manse.
The major problem in defining Thatcherism, which ultimately defeated even professional philosophers, is that Mrs Thatcher did not have one all-encompassing world view so much as a collection of apparently random and sometimes contradictory prejudices. Like most of us, I expect, but most of us do not get to lead their country.
I listened to a bit of Radio 4 tonight. This news story about the disproportionate number of BAME people fined for breaking covid-19 restrictions was featured on a couple of bulletins: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52905787
The essence of the story delivered was that BAME people had been unfairly targeted by police, evidently due to racism.
I find it disturbing to say the least that the automatic assumption from our state broadcaster is that this outcome was due to the racism of our police service, not that, for whatever reason, failing to follow lockdown guidance was more frequent proportionately amongst BAME individuals than white ones, leading to more fines.
The word 'overpoliced' was used in the report. It's a rather depressing word, given that, if widely adopted, crime statistics amongst individuals from certain communities become 'overpolicing' statistics, and the police are berated simply for doing their job. It is the worst type of sticking plaster solution, and it stimulates criminality where none existed before. It is immensely damaging to those communities it is aimed at placating, and their neighbourhoods.
Cummings. The more powerful you are the less the restrictions are enforced. The more vulnerable you are the more the restrictions are enforced. One rule for one, another rule for others.
Let's say for a minute that's true. If you were a member of a BAME community (perhaps you are, I'm not assuming), would you be unhappy that those in your own community were being 'overpoliced' for breaking lockdown rules? Would you really prefer 'underpolicing'? Underpolicing would put you at greater risk of catching the disease. Overpolicing would help protect you.
A member of a BAME community who could hold two thoughts in their head might be concerned that people should wear masks but also afraid of or offended by oppressive policing, especially if the latter had been going on since time immemorial.
Fwiw, in this multiethnic area, I've not noticed any racial differences in mask-wearing.
Comments
Unfortunately it is not a belief that is apparently accepted by much of the younger generation - the ones who were not even born until long after Thatcher fell from power and had moved into mythology. It is they who, believing that they are largely unaffected by this virus, have chosen to ignore its impact on the rest of the community - on the generations before them who are affected. 'It's only the old who die from it' is a mantra we saw repeated on here and in the wider community plenty of times at the start of the epidemic. And it is that attitude - that lack of care and responsibility - which sits so prominently in the younger generation rather than in those who are from the generation that remembers Thatcher and the PMs before her.
Worth remembering that in 2016, Trump underperformed Republican incumbents by 2.5% on average.
I would like to get my Tom Cotton bet on early.
It hasn't helped that the WHO has been so back and forth on masks. They are another organisation that has fared badly in this crisis.
Atherton
Boycott
Tavare
Trott
Hussein
Collingwood
zzzzzzz
sorry, fell asleep there
Out here in Washington State, Trumpsky is a sure loser. Whereas there is still one statewide elected Republican - WA Secretary of State Kim Wyman - who has a chance of survival this fall.
Note that Wyman's campaign consists of DISASSOCIATING herself as much as possible from Trumpsky without actually denouncing him.
Note that the LA election supervisor is the same ass who screwed up elections in King County, WA back in 2004. LA Co supervisors must be dumb as a box or rocks to hire a busted flush like him.
Enough to start a new party.
How has this disconnection between the "young" and the "old" been allowed to flourish or has it always been there? Could it be down to the inter-generational physical dislocation in families - how many families have elder relatives living with younger family members? I suspect it happens less frequently than thirty or forty years ago.
Perhaps in the new thinking on the provision of adult social care, instead of starting the tax with those aged over 40, perhaps we should tax everyone on the basis we will all be old some day (hopefully) or is this part of the "social engineering" of encouraging home ownership before retirement provision?
I'm also thinking it has to do with death - we don't normally think about or encounter death, certainly not in the way we did several decades ago. We don't talk about it though it's the one thing which unites us all.
I think the big thing about Starmer is that he is not frightening - at least not yet.
It is vanishingly unlikely that I would ever vote Labour because of my personal ideology. But at the same time a Starmer led Labour party - if it develops in the way that he seems to be leading it - does not frighten me in the way a Corbyn led Labour party did.
Obviously it is a long way away, but if the worst a Labour victory in 2024 would drag out of me is an annoyed shrug and 5 years of grumbling then I can see that for millions of people who would never have considered voting for Corbyn, Starmer is probably going to be a far more attractive proposition.
If I was fortunate enough to be their age Id be doing the same and wouldnt apologise for it.
Very unpleasant
As for what would be best for Biden, with notable exception of some 2020 primary debates, he has a GOOD record as a debater - just ask Judge Bork & Sarah Pallin.
On other hand, safety first strategy would seem to indicated skipping debates IF that's an option. Which I don't think it is. AND if it is, far better that any onus for cancelling be on Trump.
"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,"
Which seems pretty clear cut against mask wearing, right?
But then he continued: "There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage, Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."
So, a lot of the impetus - in the UK and at the WHO level - in not encouraging mask wearing was about the fact that frontline workers needed masks. That last line is the - errr - killer to me: The thought of them not having masks is horrific.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2937602/#Comment_2937602
Bicep circumference, naturlich!
(I actually have a pal who has measured his 'guns').
A good reminder what incompetent assholes Bush et al were, just in case the current incumbent is encouraging rose tinted spectacles.
That doesn't mean rehashed Blairism but Starmer, like Blair, will be anxious not to frighten the voters. If we have three or four years of pragmatic Opposition, it will also be harder for the Conservatives to portray Starmer as a feckless radical.
Starmer has started well and he clearly isn't Corbyn by any stretch of imagination. He may have some issues with some of Corbyn's fellow travellers but after 14 years out of power Labour will want to look like a serious credible alternative Government. The prospect of power does wonders for unity and discipline.
I agree with the general point though that Con-Lab seats with a decent LD vote like Truro, Southport, Watford, Wycombe and even Altrincham at a push are more winnable than some red wall seats at the next election.
Although I think West Bromwich East still goes back to Labour next time if the Tory lead is less than 5% nationally as I think Labour loss there was more due to low turnout. The Tory vote only went up 2K there and the Labour vote was down 7K.
Lone Star State indeed exceptional in many respects, but not sure what you mean in this case?
Incumbent GOP Gov Abbott will almost certainly run ahead of Trumpky. However, also note that Democrats are likely to capture the state house for first time in a generation or thereabouts.
Eastern WA weather is paying us a visit this side of the Cascades. However, starting tomorrow the Pacific Ocean starts pushing it back - humidity will go up some BUT temp will drop to more normal (for this time of year here) upper 70s F.
The major problem in defining Thatcherism, which ultimately defeated even professional philosophers, is that Mrs Thatcher did not have one all-encompassing world view so much as a collection of apparently random and sometimes contradictory prejudices. Like most of us, I expect, but most of us do not get to lead their country.
Fwiw, in this multiethnic area, I've not noticed any racial differences in mask-wearing.