Page 2 of 2

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:20 pm
by Gordaleman
evensteadiereddie wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:10 pm
Johnson can't go wrong as long as berks like Dom the Dwarf keep out of it.
If we reach the worst case scenario, it's hardly Johnson's fault. National tragedy, we're all in it together, blah, blah.

If matters improve more rapidly, it's a great victory for a heroic administration and the er, bulldog, never say die attitude of the British people.
It seems like Cummings was orchestrating strategy in Februaryand not giving a sh*t for the old. If the PM allowed that and only changed tack a few days ago, that's down to Boris and Boris alone, if that strategy now costs thousands of lives. As he said himself, "Yes, the buck stops with me."

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:25 pm
by evensteadiereddie
Indeed, you'd hope that a time like this, selfish political strategy would be at the back of the queue and the formerly much - derided experts noticed and listened to, which now seems to be the case, thank God.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:04 pm
by Grumps
Zlatan wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:05 pm
I know you’re being facetious but you know I mean that the sentiment was accurate for them
Them?
I thought me and you were roughly on the same page throughout this, not too sure now.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:11 pm
by BurnleyFC
The only saving grace is that Steptoe and his mob aren’t in charge during this pandemic.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:07 pm
by Billy Balfour
Dominic Cummings isn't much of a fan of the elderly. He probably doesn't have a mum/dad or indeed any grandparents etc, though this does seem unlikely, unless he's the product of something spewed out of a sewer during a full moon.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:10 pm
by Gordaleman
Billy Balfour wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:07 pm
Dominic Cummings isn't much of a fan of the elderly. He probably doesn't have a mum/dad or indeed any grandparents etc, though this does seem unlikely, unless he's the product of something spewed out of a sewer during a full moon.
Maybe he's a supporter of our friends down the road? You know, the No Dads?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:10 pm
by kentonclaret
"Keep Calm and Carry On" used to be an attitude applied to the British people but the daily ransacking of supermarket shelves seems to have laid that one to rest.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:14 pm
by Billy Balfour
kentonclaret wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:10 pm
"Keep Calm and Carry On" used to be an attitude applied to the British people but the daily ransacking of supermarket shelves seems to have laid that one to rest.
Keep Calm and Carry On is a myth. They had to introduce rationing in 1940 because the shops were empty within an hour of opening.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:27 pm
by Caballo
BurnleyFC wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:11 pm
The only saving grace is that Steptoe and his mob aren’t in charge during this pandemic.
I suspect we'd be in a very similar position to where we are now, the advice being received would be coming from the same sources, there's only so many outcomes you can arrive at.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:33 pm
by kentonclaret
"They had to introduce rationing in 1940 because the shops were empty within an hour of opening"

There were no self service style stores or supermarkets in 1940 and the amount of stock being held by each shop would be extremely limited. Especially of fresh perishable items. Also the food supply chains were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. The first supermarket did not open in Britain until 1948 so the idea of customer's helping themselves was unheard of.

Comparisons to 1940 are somewhat unrealistic when it comes to food shopping today where home deliveries and families having fridges and freezers is just taken for granted. In 1940 families stored perishable items in a larder or pantry and hoped for the best.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:48 pm
by Damo
Wasnt that long ago, some of you remainers couldn't wait for pensioners to kick the bucket.
Now you are outraged at Cummings suggesting it might happen.
No wonder you cant be taken seriously

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:51 pm
by Damo
BurnleyFC wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:11 pm
The only saving grace is that Steptoe and his mob aren’t in charge during this pandemic.
One thing for sure, the supermarkets wouldn't be running out of turnips if Corbyn was in charge

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:12 pm
by TVC15
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:48 pm
Wasnt that long ago, some of you remainers couldn't wait for pensioners to kick the bucket.
Now you are outraged at Cummings suggesting it might happen.
No wonder you cant be taken seriously
You post something like this and then say it’s no wonder others can’t be taken seriously ?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:24 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:12 pm
You post something like this and then say it’s no wonder others can’t be taken seriously ?
Touched a nerve did it?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:42 pm
by TVC15
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:24 pm
Touched a nerve did it?
Why would it ? I have never said that and know of anybody who has.
But feel free to carry on making sh-it up that people who voted remain wanted old people killed off early. That’s such a perfectly normal thing to post...and so tactful in this current climate.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:59 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:42 pm
Why would it ? I have never said that and know of anybody who has.
But feel free to carry on making sh-it up that people who voted remain wanted old people killed off early. That’s such a perfectly normal thing to post...and so tactful in this current climate.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 41971.html

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:00 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:42 pm
Why would it ? I have never said that and know of anybody who has.
But feel free to carry on making sh-it up that people who voted remain wanted old people killed off early. That’s such a perfectly normal thing to post...and so tactful in this current climate.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-3-argum ... 59812.html

Right wing mouthpiece lib dem voice

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:03 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:42 pm
Why would it ? I have never said that and know of anybody who has.
But feel free to carry on making sh-it up that people who voted remain wanted old people killed off early. That’s such a perfectly normal thing to post...and so tactful in this current climate.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... s-19121705

Everyone's favourite remain voting, friend of saville, drug addict Terry Christian's views

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:04 pm
by Rileybobs
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:03 pm
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... s-19121705

Everyone's favourite remain voting, friend of saville, drug addict Terry Christian's views
You have an enormous chip on your shoulder.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:06 pm
by Damo
Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:04 pm
You have an enormous chip on your shoulder.
Says you haha. You spend half your time on here taking offence at trivial things, and the other half of your time joking about people dieing
You are the boards biggest hypocrite

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:08 pm
by Rileybobs
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:06 pm
Says you haha. You spend half your time on here taking offence at trivial things, and the other half of your time joking about people dieing
You are the boards biggest hypocrite
Touched a nerve did it?

I'd love you to find an example of me taking offence at anything on this board or joking about anyone dying (note the speling), but I know that you won't be able to because you're making things up.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:10 pm
by TVC15
Yep those links really prove it - remainers want to kill of old people. I mean if someone as eminent as Sir Terry Christian posts something it must be true - he’s never said anything ridiculous.
QED.

Shall I post some right wing articles / extreme views about killing different races ? Or maybe that would be just as stupid as what you are saying.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:19 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:10 pm
Yep those links really prove it - remainers want to kill of old people. I mean if someone as eminent as Sir Terry Christian posts something it must be true - he’s never said anything ridiculous.
QED.

Shall I post some right wing articles / extreme views about killing different races ? Or maybe that would be just as stupid as what you are saying.
You said you had never heard/read of anyone saying anything like that (and called me full of sh*t)
Just standing by my op and will await your apology or admittance of being wrong.
Wont hold my breath like

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:23 pm
by TVC15
You said “some of you” remainers then said it had touched a nerve with me.
Has anybody on this board ever said that ? Who exactly were you referring to since you were posting on this board.

And why the f-uck would I apologise to an idiot who is posting sh-ite like this during a time like this ?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:34 pm
by Damo
TVC15 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:23 pm
You said “some of you” remainers then said it had touched a nerve with me.
Has anybody on this board ever said that ? Who exactly were you referring to since you were posting on this board.

And why the f-uck would I apologise to an idiot who is posting sh-ite like this during a time like this ?
Plenty of examples on here too if you can be bothered to search.
CombatClaret wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:55 pm
Is it not also morally wrong to ignore these newly enfranchised young citizens now eligible to vote but denied a say in a choice that will effect the rest of their lives in favour of people who no longer exist so therefor will not effect them in any way?

If anything that's an argument FOR a second referendum because democracy should come from the people, those new young remainers are part of said people. Callous as it sounds the dead, I'm afraid, are no longer part of the democratic process.
Not wishing to call people out but we have been over it several times

I dont want an apology from you by the way. You have always been one of the boards more emotional posters and I dont think you are capable of good faith

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:40 pm
by thatdberight
Grumps wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:26 am
Do we know he actually said that? Could it be poor reporting?
It's not even quoted as Cummings' words. It's quoted as an unnamed someone's summation of their impression of Cummings' view.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:49 pm
by TVC15
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:34 pm
Plenty of examples on here too if you can be bothered to search.

Not wishing to call people out but we have been over it several times

I dont want an apology from you by the way. You have always been one of the boards more emotional posters and I dont think you are capable of good faith
That quote does not back up what you said at all - he’s talking about people who have already died since the original referendum.
But rather than come up with meaningless personal digs why don’t you actually try and find a post which said what you said - ie that people on this board said they wanted old people killed off early.....(and you are asking me for an apology after writing something like that !!)

And what exactly would you understand about good faith given what you are posting ?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:12 pm
by CombatClaret
Damo wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:34 pm
Plenty of examples on here too if you can be bothered to search.

Not wishing to call people out but we have been over it several times

I dont want an apology from you by the way. You have always been one of the boards more emotional posters and I dont think you are capable of good faith
Please point out where I wish to kill off old people?
That the dead are no longer part of the democratic process is a statement I stand by.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:23 pm
by NewClaret
Billy Balfour wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:07 pm
Dominic Cummings isn't much of a fan of the elderly. He probably doesn't have a mum/dad or indeed any grandparents etc, though this does seem unlikely, unless he's the product of something spewed out of a sewer during a full moon.
Disgraceful comment.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:23 pm
by evensteadiereddie
:lol:

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:30 pm
by Billy Balfour
NewClaret wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:23 pm
Disgraceful comment.
Not half as disgraceful as what's been reported in today's newspapers about Cummings' lack of regard for our elderly citizens, but still, don't let that bother, eh...

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:32 pm
by Grumps
Billy Balfour wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:30 pm
Not half as disgraceful as what's been reported in today's newspapers about Cummings' lack of regard for our elderly citizens, but still, don't let that bother, eh...
It's not certain he actually made those comments, but still, don't let that bother, eh...

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:35 pm
by Billy Balfour
Grumps wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:32 pm
It's not certain he actually made those comments, but still, don't let that bother, eh...
Well let's see if he sues the Sunday Times. What's the betting?

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:39 pm
by NewClaret
Not going to get drawn in to it, other than to say there is no evidence whatsoever to support those articles.

Plenty of people around trying to politicise, scaremonger and profit from this crisis (inc Daily Mail). Utterly abhorrent in my opinion.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:13 pm
by Paul Waine
Are We Destroying Society In Order to Save It?

A blog by Prof Craig Pirrong: https://streetwiseprofessor.com/2020/03/

In 1968, journalist Peter Arnett claimed that a U.S. major had told him that a particular village in Vietnam, Ben Tre, had to be extirpated: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” (from the Vietcong), sayeth the major (according to Arnett). This has entered American discourse as “we had to destroy the village to save it.”

That phrase came to mind when contemplating the havoc wreaked by the CCP Virus. Europe is shutting down, country by country. Parts of the US have shut down. Others are on the verge of shutting down. The economic carnage is immense. Governments talk of spending trillions of dollars in various forms of relief: the loss of output/income will probably be measured in trillions.

Contra Hayek, it is the curious task of an economist to ask whether it’s worth it. That is, economics is predicated on the concept of scarcity, which in turn implies that every choice involves a trade-off. You want more of a good–or in the present instance, less of a bad–you have to give up something.
What price are you willing to pay? How much is saving 1000 lives worth? 10,000?

Orders of magnitude. Let’s say that shutting down the US economy through radical social distancing, quarantines, etc., saves 1000 lives, and costs $1 trillion. That works out to $1 billion per life. Moreover, the lives saved are most likely aged, infirm, sick individuals with short life expectancies and poor life quality.

Is that a price you are willing to pay? There is no right answer: the answer is subjective. Your answer may differ from mine. But when making decisions, it is a question we have to answer.

Increase the death toll by 10, and you are still at $100 million/life. This is far beyond any value of life estimate used in other regulatory and policy decisions.

If the cost of an economic shutdown is $1 trillion, you would have to save on the order of 100,000 lives to approximate the value of a statistical life (around $10 million) the US government uses for other policy making purposes.

I know that most people recoil at such calculations. The idea of valuing lives in dollars violates most people’s moral intuitions.

So let’s focus on lives. A major recession–or depression, which is not inconceivable–costs lives. Suicide rates go up. Substance abuse goes up, which costs lives in the near term (overdoses, fatal vehicle accidents) and the long term (substance abuse shortens lives). Stress-related fatalities (heart attack, stroke) go up. Murder rates go up. Consumption of health care declines, leading to premature deaths.

And then we can start talking about quality of life.

Pretty soon it adds up. We are not just evaluating the trade-off of lives for money. We are evaluating the trade-off of lives for lives.
That is, always remember Bastiat: think of the unseen. There is an unseen public health cost associated with major economic dislocation. That unseen cost has to be weighed against the cost that is right in front of our faces at present, i.e., the death toll from CPCV-19/20.

It is of course difficult to estimate, or even approximate, the various costs. Our radical ignorance about the virus makes it difficult to assess what the death toll would be under various policies. Similarly, we are operating in completely unexplored territory in trying to estimate the economic cost, let alone the health cost, of more or less draconian restrictions on our lives and movement.

But we have to at least confront the trade-off. Acknowledge it. Grapple with it. My strong sense is that the monomaniacal focus on controlling spread of the virus, the costs be damned, is operating according to the logic of destroying society in order to save it. That logic was absurd in 1968. It is absurd in 2020.

The comments accompanying this blog are also worth a read, if you find this interesting.

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:44 pm
by Devils_Advocate
Something that jumps out of me as missing from this viewpoint is the trade off between value of life and law and order. The more you devalue life then the less civilised a society is likely to be.

Investing in protecting life that is fragile and economically not worth saving has a far greater value in maintaining the social contract that keeps us all in the main obedient and subservient to those who govern and rule over us

Re: Boris and the Tories - Discuss

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:09 pm
by AndrewJB
Paul Waine wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:13 pm
Are We Destroying Society In Order to Save It?

A blog by Prof Craig Pirrong: https://streetwiseprofessor.com/2020/03/

In 1968, journalist Peter Arnett claimed that a U.S. major had told him that a particular village in Vietnam, Ben Tre, had to be extirpated: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” (from the Vietcong), sayeth the major (according to Arnett). This has entered American discourse as “we had to destroy the village to save it.”

That phrase came to mind when contemplating the havoc wreaked by the CCP Virus. Europe is shutting down, country by country. Parts of the US have shut down. Others are on the verge of shutting down. The economic carnage is immense. Governments talk of spending trillions of dollars in various forms of relief: the loss of output/income will probably be measured in trillions.

Contra Hayek, it is the curious task of an economist to ask whether it’s worth it. That is, economics is predicated on the concept of scarcity, which in turn implies that every choice involves a trade-off. You want more of a good–or in the present instance, less of a bad–you have to give up something.
What price are you willing to pay? How much is saving 1000 lives worth? 10,000?

Orders of magnitude. Let’s say that shutting down the US economy through radical social distancing, quarantines, etc., saves 1000 lives, and costs $1 trillion. That works out to $1 billion per life. Moreover, the lives saved are most likely aged, infirm, sick individuals with short life expectancies and poor life quality.

Is that a price you are willing to pay? There is no right answer: the answer is subjective. Your answer may differ from mine. But when making decisions, it is a question we have to answer.

Increase the death toll by 10, and you are still at $100 million/life. This is far beyond any value of life estimate used in other regulatory and policy decisions.

If the cost of an economic shutdown is $1 trillion, you would have to save on the order of 100,000 lives to approximate the value of a statistical life (around $10 million) the US government uses for other policy making purposes.

I know that most people recoil at such calculations. The idea of valuing lives in dollars violates most people’s moral intuitions.

So let’s focus on lives. A major recession–or depression, which is not inconceivable–costs lives. Suicide rates go up. Substance abuse goes up, which costs lives in the near term (overdoses, fatal vehicle accidents) and the long term (substance abuse shortens lives). Stress-related fatalities (heart attack, stroke) go up. Murder rates go up. Consumption of health care declines, leading to premature deaths.

And then we can start talking about quality of life.

Pretty soon it adds up. We are not just evaluating the trade-off of lives for money. We are evaluating the trade-off of lives for lives.
That is, always remember Bastiat: think of the unseen. There is an unseen public health cost associated with major economic dislocation. That unseen cost has to be weighed against the cost that is right in front of our faces at present, i.e., the death toll from CPCV-19/20.

It is of course difficult to estimate, or even approximate, the various costs. Our radical ignorance about the virus makes it difficult to assess what the death toll would be under various policies. Similarly, we are operating in completely unexplored territory in trying to estimate the economic cost, let alone the health cost, of more or less draconian restrictions on our lives and movement.

But we have to at least confront the trade-off. Acknowledge it. Grapple with it. My strong sense is that the monomaniacal focus on controlling spread of the virus, the costs be damned, is operating according to the logic of destroying society in order to save it. That logic was absurd in 1968. It is absurd in 2020.

The comments accompanying this blog are also worth a read, if you find this interesting.
The figures seem to be very different to the U.K.’S figures in which nearly six hundred thousand die from inaction, and that number is halved by taking some measures. The US population is over five times that of the U.K. so we could be looking at well over a million people “saved”.

The reason for the article though, in my opinion, is because what is happening now is breaking with economic orthodoxy with the state taking control of the economy. The writer is afraid that if it works, people might suggest we do it again but in more limited ways - say to end homelessness, or to make low income jobs pay, or to reduce inequality. Already I’ve seen people on social media say that if so much money can be produced to deal with this crisis, why can’t they fund childcare, university, healthcare and other important things better during normal times? At least they wouldn’t have to find as much now. Indeed why did we have austerity at all? They are fair questions.