Wheres Boris...

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... a-21889286

This is on the Mirror site.

Cobra meetings can be held without the presence of the PM.
During 9/11 this was the case, same with foot and mouth.

Cobra can operate throughout a crisis, such as foot and mouth, the PM just attends when required for the big decisions.

[dsr]

UBI for people out of work. Or for everyone, and then taxed back from higher earners. If the economy is frozen then those nurses who rent will save on that while still earning. Nurses, and firefighters, and police and government ministers still working would still get paid, no?

If the economy is frozen, then what are they getting paid with? Monopoly money?

And even if you get your head round the monopoly money idea that the government can freeze the UK economy while still paying money out of it, what do supermarket workers, delivery workers, supply chain workers get paid with? Their companies aren't receiving any proper money because you have frozen it. so are their workers not getting a proper wage?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Cobra meetings can be held without the presence of the PM.
During 9/11 this was the case, same with foot and mouth.

Cobra can operate throughout a crisis, such as foot and mouth, the PM just attends when required for the big decisions.

Evidently.

[AndrewJB]

Andrew ,
thank you for the response, fairly much what I expected from you to be honest because I believe and have said the same on many threads you can not see any good anywhere in a Tory Party regardless of what they do and say, so I believe you are not looking at anything objectively but merely from one single almost fanatical belief but we will see in the future as we move forward.

Regarding C-19, I think pretty much everyone believes there is no easy fix and we will be out of it in May/June and starting to recover, more waves are to be expected until vaccine or heard saturation hits with everyone hoping and praying for the former.

We totally agree no way the economy anywhere will simply bounce back in the vast majority of countries. We agree many people will suffer economically, how about the people 2019 bought a second home 2019 with the intent of investing life savings in total safety of bricks and mortar say in London, large second mortgage to be paid back by rent, but you're advocating rents are to be suspended, so what happens then?

I think much of the billions going to ordinary people will end back up in the economy, don't believe many are going to be upgrading cars or homes, groceries etc. will/should be first port of call, millions still in work won't hardly see a blip except be glad to get into work again. Many more millions on furlough will help for them to keep going without going in to debt, hopefully majority get back in full time.

So we have millions out of work, much more than before totally agree, therefore we need to provide the stimulus for new jobs, I personally don't care what someone did in 2019/18/17 etc., I care what they do in 2020 and will judge them off that, and if they don't provide that stimulus and try to go to austerity I promise I'll stand beside you shouting shame/shame, change.

The economy and recovery I am looking at with some companies is showing 35% down on Q1 2020, for Q2&3, Q4 30% down, Q2 2021 is 20% down with Q4 2021 back to Q1 2020. This is across similar industries and there is optimist growth across the same period through energy transition, admittedly that is global and not just UK. What I do know is a lot of people will be trying there hardest to make the recover happen but in total agreement Governments everywhere are the catalyst to this.

H2S I hope is part of what I hope to see going forward.

I think you're missing my point with regard to pausing the economy. Stop rent payments, and stop mortgage payments as well. Stop all major financial transactions for people and businesses - especially where those people or businesses cannot earn an income to pay them. This way your new landlord won't get an income from the house they're renting out, but nor will they have a mortgage payment to make on that house. The people that will lose are those who have no mortgages, and forego rental income. They then find themselves in the same position as the vast majority of fellow citizens, on a universal basic income paid by the government.

To me this allows businesses to mothball themselves until ready to open again. Your neighbourhood hairdresser, coffee shop, jewelry store - all of which could be staring at bankruptcy if this goes on into the summer under the present system. If the government pays a UBI to everyone, and everyone is spared major payments, then everyone is looked after.

[Paul Waine]

Refers to Feb and I've posted on the Covid thread. The full article is firewalled and my guess would be subscribers on her will be more right of centre so wont share the fuller article

Hopefully someone will and it can be discussed in an intelligent manner

Here you go, DA.

Sunday Times, online: Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives

Insight | Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott and Jonathan Leake Sunday April 19 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f387 ... bc88f8fe16

It's a long article and I've only skimmed to check it's the one you are looking for. It doesn't appear to have been written by supporters of BJ, though apart from attendance (or otherwise) at 5 cobra meetings, I'm not sure there's anything new.

PS: I've already seen that TVC15 has linked via Apple.

I've been watching Rolling Thunder Revue, Bob Dylan, so wasn't able to follow this thread earlier.

Have a good night, everyone. Stay safe.

[Devils_Advocate]

Here you go, DA.

Sunday Times, online: Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives

Insight | Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott and Jonathan Leake Sunday April 19 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f387 ... bc88f8fe16

It's a long article and I've only skimmed to check it's the one you are looking for. It doesn't appear to have been written by supporters of BJ, though apart from attendance (or otherwise) at 5 cobra meetings, I'm not sure there's anything new.

PS: I've already seen that TVC15 has linked via Apple.

I've been watching Rolling Thunder Revue, Bob Dylan, so wasn't able to follow this thread earlier.

Have a good night, everyone. Stay safe.

Thanks Paul. At first glance I can get into the link and view the article. Trust its the one everyone is talking about and if so I'll have a proper look tomorrow morning

[dsr]

I think you're missing my point with regard to pausing the economy. Stop rent payments, and stop mortgage payments as well. Stop all major financial transactions for people and businesses - especially where those people or businesses cannot earn an income to pay them. This way your new landlord won't get an income from the house they're renting out, but nor will they have a mortgage payment to make on that house. The people that will lose are those who have no mortgages, and forego rental income. They then find themselves in the same position as the vast majority of fellow citizens, on a universal basic income paid by the government.

To me this allows businesses to mothball themselves until ready to open again. Your neighbourhood hairdresser, coffee shop, jewelry store - all of which could be staring at bankruptcy if this goes on into the summer under the present system. If the government pays a UBI to everyone, and everyone is spared major payments, then everyone is looked after.

Do you understand what a mortgage is?

It's just that if someone has a £100k mortgage and use the £1k per month rent to pay it off, normally at the end of a year they would have £88k left on the mortgage. Under your scheme, they would have £100k left on the mortgage. Wouldn't you say they are losing out?

Incidentally, I can see how you can abolish rates and water rates, and possibly how you can abolish charges for electricity and gas, but how are you going to abolish maintenance charges? Service charges of shared flats? Travel expenses? Furniture and fittings wear and tear? Gardening costs?

[Paul Waine]

I think part of the problem with trying to transition the NHS into something more like the German or Dutch model is what we have to lose if we get it wrong

The danger is if the current Tory govt managed to be in charge of a country that wasn't as precious and aggressively defensive of the health system we have now then their is every chance they will be given the freedom and political will to move it more towards a US model than an alternative European successful model

The fact the the successful European models have govt / socialist style control and the current political view towards Europe then this makes it even more likely it will move towards a more US style system that benefits the rich over the needy

Im all for improving our health system but this populist right wing eurosceptic political climate is not the setting I want to take the risk to give up the good we already own

Good to see you are considering the German and Netherlands health care systems as alternative models. You do know that they are insurance pays models, with all citizens having health insurance and a level of patient-pays (deductible). You do also know that the neither German nor Netherlands states own the hospitals and doesn't employ the doctors and nurses (and other health care staff). You do also know that patients can use both public and private hospitals. You do already know that the health outcomes are better in both Germany and Netherlands. So, what is stopping us taking a look at how our European neighbours organise their health care? Surely, you don't think it's euroscepticism that is the barrier?

[Devils_Advocate]

Good to see you are considering the German and Netherlands health care systems as alternative models. You do know that they are insurance pays models, with all citizens having health insurance and a level of patient-pays (deductible). You do also know that the neither German nor Netherlands states own the hospitals and doesn't employ the doctors and nurses (and other health care staff). You do also know that patients can use both public and private hospitals. You do already know that the health outcomes are better in both Germany and Netherlands. So, what is stopping us taking a look at how our European neighbours organise their health care? Surely, you don't think it's euroscepticism that is the barrier?

Getting late so will look to discuss more tomorrow but the German system which I know more about is all free at point of delivery

The way the money is captured (tax v mandatory insurance at source) is different but essentially the same principle. How the healthcare system is then structured, managed and delivered is where the debate lies for me

If its a choice between a european govt funded (albeit through insurance over tax) model versus a free market US model then I would not trust the current govt and a lot of its supporters to push for the former choice

For me the devastation of moving to a US model far outweighs what we might gain from moving towards a German model and so until we have a govt more in tune with looking out for those at the bottom of society I would much rather stick with what we have which itself is a very good model and system

[aggi]

From people I know who worked with him Johnson was known for being fairly workshy when he was London mayor so this seems to be a not entirely surprising continuation of that.

Whilst mayor there was a good team around him so it wasn't they obvious but it's difficult to say that when you look at the cabinet.

[Taffy on the wing]

Do you understand what a mortgage is?

It's just that if someone has a £100k mortgage and use the £1k per month rent to pay it off, normally at the end of a year they would have £88k left on the mortgage. Under your scheme, they would have £100k left on the mortgage. Wouldn't you say they are losing out?

Incidentally, I can see how you can abolish rates and water rates, and possibly how you can abolish charges for electricity and gas, but how are you going to abolish maintenance charges? Service charges of shared flats? Travel expenses? Furniture and fittings wear and tear? Gardening costs?

My God........you're thick! ....... Pausing and Abolishing are very different things.

[AndrewJB]

Cobra meetings can be held without the presence of the PM.
During 9/11 this was the case, same with foot and mouth.

Cobra can operate throughout a crisis, such as foot and mouth, the PM just attends when required for the big decisions.

Five COBRA meetings?

[AndrewJB]

If the economy is frozen, then what are they getting paid with? Monopoly money?

And even if you get your head round the monopoly money idea that the government can freeze the UK economy while still paying money out of it, what do supermarket workers, delivery workers, supply chain workers get paid with? Their companies aren't receiving any proper money because you have frozen it. so are their workers not getting a proper wage?

Pause the U.K. economy - stop major non essential transactions for a period of time. Doesn’t read “stop paying people who are working” Sunak recently created £200Billion through quantitative easing. That is where I’d produce the money from. If the economy is on hold, printing money isn’t going to be inflationary, if it covers paying people.

[BigAlClaret]

Without being political similarly does anyone know how or where Michael Gove is?He was taken ill with symptoms a while ago and no news since.

[AndrewJB]

Do you understand what a mortgage is?

It's just that if someone has a £100k mortgage and use the £1k per month rent to pay it off, normally at the end of a year they would have £88k left on the mortgage. Under your scheme, they would have £100k left on the mortgage. Wouldn't you say they are losing out?

Incidentally, I can see how you can abolish rates and water rates, and possibly how you can abolish charges for electricity and gas, but how are you going to abolish maintenance charges? Service charges of shared flats? Travel expenses? Furniture and fittings wear and tear? Gardening costs?

I understand what a mortgage is. Yes people would have more time added to their mortgages. Landlords would lose out in the depreciation of properties. This is a lesser hit than tens of thousands of small businesses going bust because they’re so far behind on rent.

[evensteadiereddie]

Without being political similarly does anyone know how or where Michael Gove is?He was taken ill with symptoms a while ago and no news since.

He'll be working out whether to listen to the experts or whether to ignore the experts, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

[BigAlClaret]

Perfect timing Gove reappears on Sky News and answers my own question

[TheFamilyCat]

Perfect timing Gove reappears on Sky News and answers my own question

Has he answered any of the interviewer's questions? We was wonderfully evasive last time he appeared.

[Corky]

I do genuinely find it interesting reading the competing and conflicting views on here about Al Johnson and his team and their handling of the pandemic emergency. I am not surprised that he missed 5 COBRA meetings as he has a team for that sort of thing. He wants to act like a Chairman of a Corporation and given that in my view he lacks empathy and the gravitas needed to handle this emergency it is probably best if he stays well clear of any important decision making.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Five COBRA meetings?

Cobra can operate freely without the PM being present, it did during foot and mouth.

[TheFamilyCat]

Cobra can operate freely without the PM being present, it did during foot and mouth.

Nobody is disputing that. The question is what non-attendance says about the PM's attitude to it.

[AndrewJB]

Cobra can operate freely without the PM being present, it did during foot and mouth.

And we’re paying him to do what?

[thatdberight]

And we’re paying him to do what?

Well, we're paying a lot of people to do nothing at the minute so maybe, for once, "We're all in this together" applies

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Nobody is disputing that. The question is what non-attendance says about the PM's attitude to it.

The PM rocks up when it reaches as certain level, or when he is advised too.

When 9/11 was happening it wasn't Blair chairing Cobra initially, just like Blair wasn't at every cobra meeting for Foot & Mouth.
This isn't to bash Blair, because in all fairness, until things reach a certain point any PM wouldn't be able to do much.
Certain things need to be discussed, considered and a course of action decided.
A PM doesn't need to be in all of those meetings and I'll hazard a guess that it's due to them not fully understanding what's being discussed.

I wouldn't expect a PM to understand the intricacies of a
pandemic, whether that be Covid or foot and mouth.
Same with an evolving situation like 9/11 because no one knew initially what was happening.

[dsr]

My God........you're thick! ....... Pausing and Abolishing are very different things.

Actually, I'm not thick. Your problem is that you have it firmly fixed in your mind that "abolishing" means scrapping something permanently and forever with no hope of bringing it back; and you also have it fixed that you are right and everyone else is wrong and anyone so much as a smidgeon below your level of intelligence is thick.

Well, you might be right on the second part. I wouldn't know. But as for the first, it might be possible to abolish electricity and gas charges for the duration and then bring them back again later.

[dsr]

I understand what a mortgage is. Yes people would have more time added to their mortgages. Landlords would lose out in the depreciation of properties. This is a lesser hit than tens of thousands of small businesses going bust because they’re so far behind on rent.

You can very well make a political point that landlords can better afford the loss of income than tenants. I don't have to agree, but it's a valid point. Just don't say that a landlord who loses £12,000 has lost less than a tenant who loses £12,000, because it isn't true. It's £12,000 either way.

[KateR]

I think you're missing my point with regard to pausing the economy. Stop rent payments, and stop mortgage payments as well. Stop all major financial transactions for people and businesses - especially where those people or businesses cannot earn an income to pay them. This way your new landlord won't get an income from the house they're renting out, but nor will they have a mortgage payment to make on that house. The people that will lose are those who have no mortgages, and forego rental income. They then find themselves in the same position as the vast majority of fellow citizens, on a universal basic income paid by the government.

To me this allows businesses to mothball themselves until ready to open again. Your neighbourhood hairdresser, coffee shop, jewelry store - all of which could be staring at bankruptcy if this goes on into the summer under the present system. If the government pays a UBI to everyone, and everyone is spared major payments, then everyone is looked after.

No, I don't think I missed the point totally, so your going to allow people with 2 mortgages not to pay either, people with small businesses, you're going to allow then such as a hairdresser or small shops to stop paying rent on a business premise and also stop paying rent/mortgage on the home, which is a step further that I thought you meant for sure. So banks etc. who rely on that money go for months with zero revenue but still pay there staff, what would happen regarding utilities/rates etc. that those companies need in order to keep the business going and pay staff?

It just doesn't appear workable to me, where as paying people on furlough and let the government pay to the majority of working people plus those already in work seems far more sensible, plus a holiday on mortgage for those out of work while at the same time paying benefits to people . A lot of people have less outgoings but same as pre-C19 some people are out of work and struggling and I agree something needs to be done to help just not pausing the economy in that way. I can agree if it goes on a very long time then alternatives will have to be looked at and perhaps your suggestion will be one of them but not now.

[Taffy on the wing]

Actually, I'm not thick. Your problem is that you have it firmly fixed in your mind that "abolishing" means scrapping something permanently and forever with no hope of bringing it back; and you also have it fixed that you are right and everyone else is wrong and anyone so much as a smidgeon below your level of intelligence is thick.

Well, you might be right on the second part. I wouldn't know. But as for the first, it might be possible to abolish electricity and gas charges for the duration and then bring them back again later.

Abolish means to end!...Period.....the word you're looking for is Pause.

[randomclaret2]

" period.." ? Are we in America ?

[KateR]

some of us are, but don't let the Welsh bat fool you, he lives in his own little world.

[Taffy on the wing]

I think you're missing my point with regard to pausing the economy. Stop rent payments, and stop mortgage payments as well. Stop all major financial transactions for people and businesses - especially where those people or businesses cannot earn an income to pay them. This way your new landlord won't get an income from the house they're renting out, but nor will they have a mortgage payment to make on that house. The people that will lose are those who have no mortgages, and forego rental income. They then find themselves in the same position as the vast majority of fellow citizens, on a universal basic income paid by the government.

To me this allows businesses to mothball themselves until ready to open again. Your neighbourhood hairdresser, coffee shop, jewelry store - all of which could be staring at bankruptcy if this goes on into the summer under the present system. If the government pays a UBI to everyone, and everyone is spared major payments, then everyone is looked after.

Exactly this!

[taio]

some of us are, but don't let the Welsh bat fool you, he lives in his own little world.

I had assumed he is the person who used to post under the username South West Claret who was banned from this messageboard and most often didn't add anything meaningful to a debate - just flippant one line responses.

[TheFamilyCat]

The PM rocks up when it reaches as certain level, or when he is advised too.

When 9/11 was happening it wasn't Blair chairing Cobra initially, just like Blair wasn't at every cobra meeting for Foot & Mouth.
This isn't to bash Blair, because in all fairness, until things reach a certain point any PM wouldn't be able to do much.
Certain things need to be discussed, considered and a course of action decided.
A PM doesn't need to be in all of those meetings and I'll hazard a guess that it's due to them not fully understanding what's being discussed.

I wouldn't expect a PM to understand the intricacies of a
pandemic, whether that be Covid or foot and mouth.
Same with an evolving situation like 9/11 because no one knew initially what was happening.

That's a pretty weak defence. The accusation is that the government didn't take the threat seriously enough. Saying he wouldn't "rock up" until it reached "a certain level" suggests that the level was too late, for whatever reason.

[AndrewJB]

No, I don't think I missed the point totally, so your going to allow people with 2 mortgages not to pay either, people with small businesses, you're going to allow then such as a hairdresser or small shops to stop paying rent on a business premise and also stop paying rent/mortgage on the home, which is a step further that I thought you meant for sure. So banks etc. who rely on that money go for months with zero revenue but still pay there staff, what would happen regarding utilities/rates etc. that those companies need in order to keep the business going and pay staff?

It just doesn't appear workable to me, where as paying people on furlough and let the government pay to the majority of working people plus those already in work seems far more sensible, plus a holiday on mortgage for those out of work while at the same time paying benefits to people . A lot of people have less outgoings but same as pre-C19 some people are out of work and struggling and I agree something needs to be done to help just not pausing the economy in that way. I can agree if it goes on a very long time then alternatives will have to be looked at and perhaps your suggestion will be one of them but not now.

Banks wouldn’t have to pay non working staff, because the government would pay a UBI to everyone - which would cover the essentials because their rents and mortgages would also be paused. If the UBI covered utilities, then those organisations could continue operating. If you follow the money trail upwards you eventually get to people who have no major outgoings and live off income from assets. These people are the eventual “losers” of such a scheme - because there’s no payment holiday for them to take advantage of, however in the grand scheme of things, they’re in no different position to many other people who forego income, and they will also get the UBI.

The problem with the current scheme is it pays out vastly greater sums, and it leaves a lot of people unprotected. Even just owing three months rent with no income could force some out of business. And it costs a lot less to just keep a business afloat than it does to start one again.

[AndrewJB]

You can very well make a political point that landlords can better afford the loss of income than tenants. I don't have to agree, but it's a valid point. Just don't say that a landlord who loses £12,000 has lost less than a tenant who loses £12,000, because it isn't true. It's £12,000 either way.

You can make that point about anyone now foregoing income (and if were fair it’ll be the percentage of their income they’re foregoing). Lots of ordinary people are not able to earn right now. This sacrifice is necessary for the greater good. Extending that sacrifice up the income chain is not an act of cruelty in the circumstances.

If there were twenty of us in a room, all with varying financial obligations toward each other, but one person (the twentieth) with no obligations to anyone else, but earning income by renting to half of the others, and a crisis ensued with fifteen people unable to earn money: If there was a general agreement among everyone that obligations be paused until the crisis were over; nineteen people would cry foul if the twentieth insisted that obligations to him continue to be met, and likely the safety of that last person would no longer be assured.

[KateR]

Banks wouldn’t have to pay non working staff, because the government would pay a UBI to everyone - which would cover the essentials because their rents and mortgages would also be paused. If the UBI covered utilities, then those organisations could continue operating. If you follow the money trail upwards you eventually get to people who have no major outgoings and live off income from assets. These people are the eventual “losers” of such a scheme - because there’s no payment holiday for them to take advantage of, however in the grand scheme of things, they’re in no different position to many other people who forego income, and they will also get the UBI.

The problem with the current scheme is it pays out vastly greater sums, and it leaves a lot of people unprotected. Even just owing three months rent with no income could force some out of business. And it costs a lot less to just keep a business afloat than it does to start one again.

ok, appreciate your thoughts and it is something that is an alternative, thank you for helping me understand your scheme better

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That's a pretty weak defence. The accusation is that the government didn't take the threat seriously enough. Saying he wouldn't "rock up" until it reached "a certain level" suggests that the level was too late, for whatever reason.

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04 ... t-article/

[KateR]

wow, Fake news then, who'd of thunk it

[thatdberight]

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04 ... t-article/

That's a strangely ungovernmental response in parts like somebody's really hacked off - the bit about, "Which is it?" for example. It certainly disputes some key points. I wish it had said what it means in one bit - the bit about the date should read... "If you can't even get the ******* date right, I imagine the rest of this is pish"

[AndrewJB]

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04 ... t-article/

Just looking at that, and some of it is misleading. It says it’s entirely normal for the cabinet minister responsible for the subject the meeting is about normally chairs the meeting. It gives examples of Labour cabinet members who chaired meetings. This could lead the reader into believing Blair or Brown weren’t there, however an ex official has claimed that Blair and Brown didn’t miss a single one. The issue isn’t whether or not Johnson CHAIRED the meetings, but if he was actually there.

[dermotdermot]

I had assumed he is the person who used to post under the username South West Claret who was banned from this messageboard and most often didn't add anything meaningful to a debate - just flippant one line responses.

I wondered what had happened to him. Most objectionable fellow.

[Paul Waine]

Banks wouldn’t have to pay non working staff, because the government would pay a UBI to everyone - which would cover the essentials because their rents and mortgages would also be paused. If the UBI covered utilities, then those organisations could continue operating. If you follow the money trail upwards you eventually get to people who have no major outgoings and live off income from assets. These people are the eventual “losers” of such a scheme - because there’s no payment holiday for them to take advantage of, however in the grand scheme of things, they’re in no different position to many other people who forego income, and they will also get the UBI.

The problem with the current scheme is it pays out vastly greater sums, and it leaves a lot of people unprotected. Even just owing three months rent with no income could force some out of business. And it costs a lot less to just keep a business afloat than it does to start one again.

Hi Andrew, how is your UBI going to deal with the people that are still working, whether essential services or those that are working from home on full pay? And, how is your UBI scheme going to deal with all the pensioners living on their final salary pensions (not, those on state pension only)?

And, how long will it take to set up your UBI scheme? 3 months, 6 months, a lot longer?

PS: BTW, I'm clean shaven today.

Take care. Stay safe.

[Paul Waine]

Just looking at that, and some of it is misleading. It says it’s entirely normal for the cabinet minister responsible for the subject the meeting is about normally chairs the meeting. It gives examples of Labour cabinet members who chaired meetings. This could lead the reader into believing Blair or Brown weren’t there, however an ex official has claimed that Blair and Brown didn’t miss a single one. The issue isn’t whether or not Johnson CHAIRED the meetings, but if he was actually there.

Hi Andrew, how does that work? Minister in charge chairs the cobra meeting, What would her/his boss being there as well add to it, a better meeting? or confusion and lack of clarity?

I'd find out who the "ex official" is who's claiming that Blair and Brown (and I assume, when each was PM, in turn) also attended when they weren't chairing the meeting. Can you imagine either of them attending and not being the chair?

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, how is your UBI going to deal with the people that are still working, whether essential services or those that are working from home on full pay? And, how is your UBI scheme going to deal with all the pensioners living on their final salary pensions (not, those on state pension only)?

And, how long will it take to set up your UBI scheme? 3 months, 6 months, a lot longer?

PS: BTW, I'm clean shaven today.

Take care. Stay safe.

It would probably be easier to give UBI to everyone - working or not. Tax it back later from those on higher incomes. How long does it take to begin paying furloughed workers 80% of their basic salary? And different payments to the self employed? I had a letter arrive from 10 Downing St last week. How long did it take to print all of those up and send them off?

It would be far less complex, a lot cheaper, and far less open to fraud to provide a UBI to everyone, than having to work out individual payment plans based on a myriad of different circumstances, and even then a great many people falling through the gaps. How much would a UBI cost to put in place compared to probably ten times the number of staff required to process the complicated dogs dinner Sunak has put together?

Your question sidesteps the wider element of this kind of scheme, in which small businesses - which are the mainstay of the economy - can mothball and return to business without significant losses once the government deems it safe. And in which ordinary people can live through a lockdown safe in the knowledge they won't be asked to stump up three month's rent or face eviction once they go back to work.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, how does that work? Minister in charge chairs the cobra meeting, What would her/his boss being there as well add to it, a better meeting? or confusion and lack of clarity?

I'd find out who the "ex official" is who's claiming that Blair and Brown (and I assume, when each was PM, in turn) also attended when they weren't chairing the meeting. Can you imagine either of them attending and not being the chair?

I haven't even finished reading the government response yet. I saw the information I mentioned in a Scottish newspaper. I'll look it up later and post. I'll see if I can find anything on Cameron and May attending them, and in what capacity.

From my experience the chair needn't be the most senior person in an organisation. It's the person running the agenda. If the senior person is there, they can interrupt the agenda by asking questions or taking it off track, but the person delivering the information (or the person with "ownership" of the subject) is best placed to chair.

Glad you've not run out of razor blades, but it remains that Sunak "magicked" £200 Billion from that fabled tree. Personally I think that's better than borrowing it. What's your opinion on him doing that?

[claretonthecoast1882]

I had assumed he is the person who used to post under the username South West Claret who was banned from this messageboard and most often didn't add anything meaningful to a debate - just flippant one line responses.

If south west claret made a habit of targeting posters with female usernames then it could well be the same person. Takes a huge amount of bravery to constantly dig at a female which says a lot about taffy. He isn't alone though there is a few on here who do the same in their little group and when they aren't doing it themselves they are liking their little sidekicks digs. Says so much about each of them.

Hopefully being male I will be exempt from their vicious attacks

[quoonbeatz]

That's a strangely ungovernmental response in parts like somebody's really hacked off - the bit about, "Which is it?" for example.

First thing I noticed as well. Pen of Cummings I'd have thought.

It certainly disputes some key points. I wish it had said what it means in one bit - the bit about the date should read... "If you can't even get the ******* date right, I imagine the rest of this is pish"

Unfortunately for them, they couldn't say that as it applies equally to their rebuttal.

[thatdberight]

First thing I noticed as well. Pen of Cummings I'd have thought.

Unfortunately for them, they couldn't say that as it applies equally to their rebuttal.

I couldn't say. He's just a bloke in some newspaper headlines to me and I know nothing of him really other than him becoming some sort of bogeyman for those on the other side of UK politics.

I'm sure there is substance to the underlying claim that some bad decisions were made. It would be amazing if that wasn't true. The writers didn't help themselves getting carried away with their unnecessarily purple prose which would lead any reasonable person to believe that truths within the piece were, if not embellished, certainly polished up for maximum impact.

[evensteadiereddie]

If south west claret made a habit of targeting posters with female usernames then it could well be the same person. Takes a huge amount of bravery to constantly dig at a female which says a lot about taffy. He isn't alone though there is a few on here who do the same in their little group and when they aren't doing it themselves they are liking their little sidekicks digs. Says so much about each of them.

Hopefully being male I will be exempt from their vicious attacks

How very gallant !

Does this include the poster, a right-wing bloke, running at least two accounts with one of them posing as female ? Tricky one, that.

I'd have thought if you post on here, whoever you may or may not be, you'd be open to criticism - or "digs" as you'd call it - or support, dependent upon the comment you post and whether folk agree with you or not. Fair dos and all that.

If you're seriously suggesting that someone has targeted female posters using sexist language then, agreed, that's abhorrent - as abhorrent as say, making racist or homophobic comments for which, I gather, certain posters have been banned.......

[quoonbeatz]

I couldn't say. He's just a bloke in some newspaper headlines to me and I know nothing of him really other than him becoming some sort of bogeyman for those on the other side of UK politics.

I'm sure there is substance to the underlying claim that some bad decisions were made. It would be amazing if that wasn't true. The writers didn't help themselves getting carried away with their unnecessarily purple prose which would lead any reasonable person to believe that truths within the piece were, if not embellished, certainly polished up for maximum impact.