Stay Alert

[diamondpocket]

Has Sturgeon actually said when they are likely to start relaxing the rules? Or could it be she is just waiting to see what happens over the next week? An extra week of lockdown may make a big difference when re-opening or not. I'd say it's better to be a little cautious at this point. And isn't basing her decisions on going against parliament.

[Grumps]

Genuinely surprises me, mate.

Suspect the Tories losing voter share is an irreversible trend, and independence at some stage a certainty, but with such a comparatively low death rate, I’m shocked that the people will maintain support for a strong lockdown whilst the rest of Europe “opens up”.

I have no doubt it may yet prove to be the best decision, just that I’m surprised at this juncture it has such high levels of public support.

Wait till early July, and Glasgow is full because they Carnt go to Blackpool.... They might be against it then

[aggi]

Given the seats the Conservatives picked up in the election,there must have been some Labour voters switching.

Now as to your other points,Corbyn has gone that's correct,but it will take time for Labour to recover those lost votes,it's certainly possible that they will in time,but it won't happen overnight.

2nd point brexit is by no means done,however much people might think differently,anyone who claims that is blinkered.

I'm perhaps unusual on this forum.i don't have a tribal loyalty to any one party,i judge them on their actions and records,yes i voted Conservative in 2019, but it's by no means guaranteed i'll stick for them in 2024,or whenever the next election is held.

Yes, your stance is pretty much what I'd expect from a rational person. Voted conservative in 2019 but that doesn't mean you have to defend every single thing they do. It's just those who switched and have become ultra-tribal that I struggle to understand.

[IanMcL]

Matt Lucas has condensed Mr Johnson's speech, for clarity.

https://twitter.com/WoodyHRT/status/125 ... 20354?s=09

It is from Twitter though, so you may have to login.

[diamondpocket]

haha, he's got the voice spot on.

[IanMcL]

Mr J has also devised a new song and dance, to add to the clarity of his message.

It is called the Hokey Covid

You put your whole self in....you put your whole self out....in....out...in....out....look out for Lerts.

[diamondpocket]

Boris now live on LBC in the house of commons

[IanMcL]

He is on TV too!

[Wile E Coyote]

he is, and unless i missed it, he swerved the question about why those arriving back on flights have not been quarantined.

[IanMcL]

Tweet from HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU

BREAKING: Government surpasses 100,000-a-day testing target, by successfully testing the patience of 66 million people.

[Grumps]

Tweet from HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU

BREAKING: Government surpasses 100,000-a-day testing target, by successfully testing the patience of 66 million people.

One thing this time has shown, is that people aren't as funny as they think they are...

[IanMcL]

I found it very funny, as well as accurate!

[Darthlaw]

Now then, Grumps, you'll be ruining Ian's vinegar strokes...

[dsr]

I found it very funny, as well as accurate!

While it's tempting to blame every single thing that is going wrong on the government, I think it's worth remembering that some of the inconveniences are partly because of this virus as well.

[depechedingle]

I tried to stay alert on my walk earlier, stepped off the path to be courteous to a fellow Walker and stood in what by depth must have been the **** of a Great Dane.

Clearly I'm not alert enough.

[tim_noone]

Now then, Grumps, you'll be ruining Ian's vinegar strokes...

I confess to googling vinegar stroke

[tim_noone]

I tried to stay alert on my walk earlier, stepped off the path to be courteous to a fellow Walker and stood in what by depth must have been the **** of a Great Dane.

Clearly I'm not alert enough.

Your Lucky day....

[AndrewJB]

Very off topic, I know, but I don’t agree that lower taxes means poorer public services. Tax receipts have risen whilst tax rates reduced (they’ve doubled in 10 years). I think higher taxes just encourage more avoidance, which infuriates me.

I don’t personally have any experience of the underfunding you describe - my children go to great schools with reasonable class sizes, my wife works for the NHS and her team/service has grown over the last five years (has never known a job cut in 25 years service), my families NHS care has always been outstanding (particularly cancer treatments), as has my grandparents experience in care homes. That’s not to say everyone is so lucky, I accept that, just generalising in terms of my experience.

Do entirely agree about the sick and disabled, and all other vulnerable parts of society, particularly mental health, requiring more money, just not that “high” taxes is the way to create the funding.

If increased tax receipts come out of lower tax rates, why not decrease VAT to 1%? Lead with tax reductions that benefit everyone, and we could always have a higher VAT that kicks in for non-house purchases over £100k so as not to lose all the VAT receipts.

[dsr]

If increased tax receipts come out of lower tax rates, why not decrease VAT to 1%? Lead with tax reductions that benefit everyone, and we could always have a higher VAT that kicks in for non-house purchases over £100k so as not to lose all the VAT receipts.

You're confusing VAT and Income/Corporation Tax, Andrew. VAT is a tax on consumption and those rates haven't fallen. Corporation Tax and Income Tax are taxes on profits / income, and those rates are the rates that have fallen.

The two work in entirely different ways. You can't extrapolate the result of one system onto the other.

[wembley94]

Time ITV sent Piers Morgan to the daily covid19 briefing.rather than Preston who will just ask something stupid

[Billy Balfour]

Pretty poor leadership when BJ couldn't bring Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland round to his Stay Alert policy. It's also poor policy making when someone like Arlene Foster can't bring herself to support it. The bozo is finally being found out.

[IanMcL]

While it's tempting to blame every single thing that is going wrong on the government, I think it's worth remembering that some of the inconveniences are partly because of this virus as well.

The virus is the cause of the initial problem.
The Government is wholly responsible, thereafter.

Mistakes will be judged afterwards. Poor planning, execution and judgement are unforgivable and 'live'.


The virus is not just for Christmas.

[AndrewJB]

You're confusing VAT and Income/Corporation Tax, Andrew. VAT is a tax on consumption and those rates haven't fallen. Corporation Tax and Income Tax are taxes on profits / income, and those rates are the rates that have fallen.

The two work in entirely different ways. You can't extrapolate the result of one system onto the other.

They do, but the rightwing principle - that lower tax rates bring in higher revenues should be the same, no? WIth a lower VAT, people will have more disposable income to spend on more goods, therefore bringing in more VAT? The Laffer Curve.

The reason rightwing people won't extend the (utterly bogus and discredited) theory of Laffer's Curve to consumption tax such as VAT, is it's a regressive tax and therefore suits them. Going back to the '80s I can remember right wing economists calling for the abolition of income tax altogether, and government revenues to come solely from consumption taxes. The rich and poor paying the same percentage for every pound they spend. You can be certain that if a luxury tax was introduced, you'd soon hear the laffer curve deployed to rubbish it, with the added frisson that it "would really help out our luxury yacht industry..."

[dsr]

They do, but the rightwing principle - that lower tax rates bring in higher revenues should be the same, no? WIth a lower VAT, people will have more disposable income to spend on more goods, therefore bringing in more VAT? The Laffer Curve.

The reason rightwing people won't extend the (utterly bogus and discredited) theory of Laffer's Curve to consumption tax such as VAT, is it's a regressive tax and therefore suits them. Going back to the '80s I can remember right wing economists calling for the abolition of income tax altogether, and government revenues to come solely from consumption taxes. The rich and poor paying the same percentage for every pound they spend. You can be certain that if a luxury tax was introduced, you'd soon hear the laffer curve deployed to rubbish it, with the added frisson that it "would really help out our luxury yacht industry..."

Nope. If someone spends £120 now, the government gets £20. If instead they only have top spend £101 and the government gets £1, so they spend the other £19 and the governments gets another 18p or 19p, that makes not much over £1, which is less than £20.

VAT and Income Tax are such completely different things. Don't try and apply economic rules from one to the other, it really won't work.

[Cirrus_Minor]

So,
I can go outside and meet one person of my family, or anyone else as long as i social distance - stay at least 2_metres away. But only one person

I then go to a supermarket queue, all spaced 2 metres apart and I meet 2 people. This is ok

Explain please?

[tiger76]

The Johnson apologists on here never cease to amaze me , it’s like they are part of some sort of crackpot religious sect who can’t take any criticism of their glorious leader , he’s a lying , self centered,morally corrupt,imbecile .

I wouldn't go that far,but he's not inspiring confidence,and if he's not doing the job he was elected to do,it's reasonable to expect criticism.

[IanMcL]

Nope. If someone spends £120 now, the government gets £20. If instead they only have top spend £101 and the government gets £1, so they spend the other £19 and the governments gets another 18p or 19p, that makes not much over £1, which is less than £20.

VAT and Income Tax are such completely different things. Don't try and apply economic rules from one to the other, it really won't work.

The theory would be that more spending power would mean more spending. More spending means more product. More product means more jobs. More jobs means more people with spending power etc.

Currently, we fuel Germany and China!

[tiger76]

Funny i thought we were following the science.https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-b ... 0278.html

[Devils_Advocate]

Funny i thought we were following the science.https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-b ... 0278.html

He is following the science but just from the scientists that take their orders from Cummings

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Herd Immunity part 2 sure it’ll end well.

[LoveCurryPies]

I’m hoping the people who are having parties, or demanding everything should open, watch Hospital on BBC2 now.

It's really frightening and very, very sad.

[AndrewJB]

Nope. If someone spends £120 now, the government gets £20. If instead they only have top spend £101 and the government gets £1, so they spend the other £19 and the governments gets another 18p or 19p, that makes not much over £1, which is less than £20.

VAT and Income Tax are such completely different things. Don't try and apply economic rules from one to the other, it really won't work.

"Economic rules"? The laugher's curve was only ever a theory. And of course a bad one.

If a company earns £100 and pays tax of 30%, then the government gets £30. If the government lowers the tax rate to 20% then the government only earns £20. Oh look, by your reasoning the laffers curve doesn't work. Of course, what you claim is that by owing less tax, the company works harder, so earns more money, and then pays more tax as a sum total. But then you have to account for the laxes from companies that didn't chase the money as well. Their tax payments are lower, because your company grew into their markets. The government reap from the whole field.

[dsr]

"Economic rules"? The laugher's curve was only ever a theory. And of course a bad one.

If a company earns £100 and pays tax of 30%, then the government gets £30. If the government lowers the tax rate to 20% then the government only earns £20. Oh look, by your reasoning the laffers curve doesn't work. Of course, what you claim is that by owing less tax, the company works harder, so earns more money, and then pays more tax as a sum total. But then you have to account for the laxes from companies that didn't chase the money as well. Their tax payments are lower, because your company grew into their markets. The government reap from the whole field.

I've never claimed anything about the Laffer curve because I'm not an economist. You're the one who claims to have all the economic answers. Which is a bit of a shame, because clearly you aren't an economist either.

I have said that income taking rose after top rate tax was cut by Margaret Thatcher, but I think that's a statement of fact, not theory.

What I have claimed is that the company can only do three things with its money. Spend it, keep it, or pay it to its shareholders. They used to have an adequate system for taxing dividends called ACT, which meant that company profits were further taxed if not reinvested, but that was abolished by Gordon Brown in the interest (presumably) of giving rich foreigners a tax break. Reintroduce ACT, and that gives the company three valid options; reinvest it, pay it out and pay tax on it, or keep it for later and then spend it pay it as dividends.

[Burnley Ace]

So,
I can go outside and meet one person of my family, or anyone else as long as i social distance - stay at least 2_metres away. But only one person

I then go to a supermarket queue, all spaced 2 metres apart and I meet 2 people. This is ok

Explain please?

You aren’t meeting them, you are standing 2 meters away from them for a fairly short period of time. You aren’t facing them so you breathing in their face so they aren’t potentially inhaling droplets. If you meet someone, you are in their company for a longer period of time and are looking at them, getting too close would increase the potential of any contamination, though hopefully, as you will both have been in isolation the risk is even smaller

[atlantalad]

So,
I can go outside and meet one person of my family, or anyone else as long as i social distance - stay at least 2_metres away. But only one person

I then go to a supermarket queue, all spaced 2 metres apart and I meet 2 people. This is ok

Explain please?

From your statements "This is ok. Explain please"? I thought it was an invitation to solve some kind of criptic puzzle involving lateral thinking.

My answer: you only actually met 1 family member but you thought there were 2 because the single family member was stood next to a mirror.

I then realised it wasn't a criptic puzzle and, more worryingly, you were serious. I don't tend to socialise in supermarkets but hey ho, everyone to their own.

[IanMcL]

He is saying that with one person behind him and one in front, in the queue, he has been in contact with 2 unknown persons, who may or may not cough and sneeze on him. Why cannot he meet with 2 family members who can assure him they won't sneeze on him?

Similarly, you can play tennis 1 on 1 but not family doubles.

[Bordeauxclaret]

All this confusion has got people talking about something other than the body count at least.

[Hipper]

He is saying that with one person behind him and one in front, in the queue, he has been in contact with 2 unknown persons, who may or may not cough and sneeze on him. Why cannot he meet with 2 family members who can assure him they won't sneeze on him?

Similarly, you can play tennis 1 on 1 but not family doubles.

Do you really expect the government to micro-manage your life? I should hope not.

Use your common sense. Singles tennis - two people on different sides of the net - safer. Doubles two people on the same side of the net - greater risk. I would assume it also means 'outdoor tennis'.

Shopping is an unavoidable feature of our lives and compromises have to be made. You can make a risk assessment of your shopping so reducing the risks to you - go earlier or later etc.. We make risk assessments individually all the time.

Working is also unavoidable for many and risk assessments will have to be made on how this is done.

You and many others are just nit picking for its own sake or their own agenda.

[Grumps]

Do you really expect the government to micro-manage your life? I should hope not.

Use your common sense. Singles tennis - two people on different sides of the net - safer. Doubles two people on the same side of the net - greater risk. I would assume it also means 'outdoor tennis'.

Shopping is an unavoidable feature of our lives and compromises have to be made. You can make a risk assessment of your shopping so reducing the risks to you - go earlier or later etc.. We make risk assessments individually all the time.

Working is also unavoidable for many and risk assessments will have to be made on how this is done.

You and many others are just nit picking for its own sake or their own agenda.

I agree with what you say, but in fairness he did say family doubles, it would probably be better to describe it as household doubles. A doubles team from the same household, who don't need to social distance, could play another such team.

[boatshed bill]

It's a godsend that we all have tennis courts in our gardens

[Grumps]

It's a godsend that we all have tennis courts in our gardens

I don't have a basketball court, skateboard Park, netball Court in my garden either, but they will also be open, any problems with those being open?

I don't play golf or tennis, but can see why it would be beneficial to those who do.

[NewClaret]

I agree with what you say, but in fairness he did say family doubles, it would probably be better to describe it as household doubles. A doubles team from the same household, who don't need to social distance, could play another such team.

As Boris said yesterday, the “stay home” message was very clear and had a powerful simplicity, but reopening the country (which I assume we all want?) will likely take many small steps, not all in perfect alignment, and possible reversals along the way. Naturally, the messaging will become more complex and, to some, confused.

I listened in on Sunday and found it perfectly clear what he was saying, but then you get some wanting specific guidance on when they can play a round of four-ball with three members of their household and one family member outside their household if they social distance

The answer is to use your common sense, which appears is in short supply at the moment.

I will say that when I listened to the two scientists, they explained the rationale behind decisions much more clearly than Boris.

[boatshed bill]

I don't have a basketball court, skateboard Park, netball Court in my garden either, but they will also be open, any problems with those being open?

I don't play golf or tennis, but can see why it would be beneficial to those who do.

So municipal stuff?
What about chamnging facilities?

[TheFamilyCat]

As Boris said yesterday, the “stay home” message was very clear and had a powerful simplicity, but reopening the country (which I assume we all want?) will likely take many small steps, not all in perfect alignment, and possible reversals along the way. Naturally, the messaging will become more complex and, to some, confused.

I listened in on Sunday and found it perfectly clear what he was saying, but then you get some wanting specific guidance on when they can play a round of four-ball with three members of their household and one family member outside their household if they social distance

The answer is to use your common sense, which appears is in short supply at the moment.

I will say that when I listened to the two scientists, they explained the rationale behind decisions much more clearly than Boris.

If he was so clear on Sunday why were members of his own cabinet able to explain it consistently on Monday morning?

[Grumps]

So municipal stuff?
What about chamnging facilities?

Turn up ready changed
A lot of the courts are in inner city areas, close to multi storey flats where people are struggling for exercise, so would be a god send to them.

[boatshed bill]

Turn up ready changed
A lot of the courts are in inner city areas, close to multi storey flats where people are struggling for exercise, so would be a god send to them.

I can see where you are coming from. My question about it is are we not encouraging people to mingle, allbeit unintentionally, therefore risking spreading the virus?

[NewClaret]

If he was so clear on Sunday why were members of his own cabinet able to explain it consistently on Monday morning?

Presumably because it was clear?

[TVC15]

This clear ?

https://youtu.be/Ktl2KtJTlAU

[Grumps]

I can see where you are coming from. My question about it is are we not encouraging people to mingle, allbeit unintentionally, therefore risking spreading the virus?

The government are relying on people's common sense, which in truth could be the downfall.
The parks and open spaces are going to be full of people mingling, having driven 100s of miles to get there, mingling at petrol stations and shops on route.
Wales seem to have found the middle ground, exercise as much as you want, but you have to start and finish at home.

[IanMcL]

Do you really expect the government to micro-manage your life? I should hope not.

You and many others are just nit picking for its own sake or their own agenda.

1. That's what they are doing.
2. I was just adding clarity, to the point he was making, for your ease.

The agenda is for all to be safe.