Coronavirus - the political argument

karlypants wrote:I bet Nat always loved playing Doh Nutters.

I have no idea what that is. And I'm not Googling it.

Sluffy wrote:Anyway possible good news at last perhaps?


22:30
'Very positive development' in antibody testing

Public Health England (PHE) says an antibody test for coronavirus has been evaluated and is a "very positive development".
The product made by the drug company Roche was assessed by PHE at its Porton Down laboratories last week. Sources say it is the first such test to offer serious potential.
Such a test looks for antibodies in the bloodstream to see whether an individual has in the past had the virus and has gained immunity.
It is understood talks are now underway between Roche and the Department of Health over possible supply to the NHS.
Previous antibody tests have proved unreliable according to health officials. Some are still being assessed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52642895

And more good news the government has defeated an attempt to guarantee a ban on chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef. Hooray!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52653607

Sluffy please feel free to move this post to another thread but only after Cajunboy has seen it.

Sluffy wrote:Anyway possible good news at last perhaps?


22:30
'Very positive development' in antibody testing

Public Health England (PHE) says an antibody test for coronavirus has been evaluated and is a "very positive development".
The product made by the drug company Roche was assessed by PHE at its Porton Down laboratories last week. Sources say it is the first such test to offer serious potential.
Such a test looks for antibodies in the bloodstream to see whether an individual has in the past had the virus and has gained immunity.
It is understood talks are now underway between Roche and the Department of Health over possible supply to the NHS.
Previous antibody tests have proved unreliable according to health officials. Some are still being assessed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52642895

A very positive step, however the challenge will be on the actual testing, this requires a medical professional to draw blood, rather than a self home kit, so will be much more difficult to role out.

okocha wrote:Haha Hancock

https://twitter.com/i/status/12590315118918778

Very funny but very worrying.

A must-read, brilliant piece of writing by John Crace

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/13/boris-johnson-resorts-to-bluster-under-keir-starmer-cross-examination?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

Deeply troubling survey by the Doctors Association showing doctors feel intimidated, harassed and bullied by their bosses into keeping quiet about shortages of PPE protective equipment. See attached pic.twitter.com/1J55TZ7gt4

— Robert Peston (@Peston) May 14, 2020

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

Ah, but it's HOW Crace writes it that's so amusing and significant....but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

And, (with apologies to Paul Simon),  a man reads what he wants to read, and disregards the rest......

Are you calling me a horse?

You've got to laugh really - only last night we had the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps telling the nation to use cars instead of public transport to get to work (if they can't walk/cycle to it) and today...

12:08
London's congestion charge is back - and going up

The congestion charge in London will be reinstated on Monday and will rise from £11.50 to £15 from 22 June.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the "temporary" increase was intended to encourage people to walk or cycle rather than drive, at a time when people are urged to avoid crowding onto public transport.
The hours are also being extended: the congestion charge will now apply from 07:00 to 22:00, seven days a week. A system of reimbursement for NHS workers will be extended to care home workers, however.

The low emission zone and ultra-low emission zone - which impose levies on high-polluting vehicles - are also returning on Monday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52671694

(I know it isn't a big thing outside London but it is to many around and in London returning to work).


Hardly joined up thinking really is it?

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Lies/empty statements cut through. ‘Get Brexit done’, ‘£350 million for the NHS’, ‘build a wall’. 

Sure, you can say if people are naive enough to vote for them they deserve what they get, but really that’s excusing the charlatans who run these campaign with the deliberate intention to deceive.

Both Boris and Trump have been badly exposed by the current crisis. We’ll have to wait and see if enough people really sit up and recognise how out of their depth these two are though.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

If you want me to be really pedantic then here you are - in order to become the PM he had to be an MP.  In order to be an MP he had to be voted in by his constituents at an election.  Even before that stage, in order to stand as a candidate for that election he had to be voted in by the Conservative members of that constituency.

So he's been democratically elected by a majority at all stages, just to be even there to become the PM in the first place.

So stick that in your pipe!

We all know what I was talking about - Boris was seen to be the lesser of two evils by the electorate at the GE and the same in America with Trump over Hilary.

Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

Unfortunately.

(Probably why I'm non political and don't vote).

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Lies/empty statements cut through. ‘Get Brexit done’, ‘£350 million for the NHS’, ‘build a wall’. 

Sure, you can say if people are naive enough to vote for them they deserve what they get, but really that’s excusing the charlatans who run these campaign with the deliberate intention to deceive.

Both Boris and Trump have been badly exposed by the current crisis. We’ll have to wait and see if enough people really sit up and recognise how out of their depth these two are though.

1 - Agree

2 - They probably won't.

(Unfortunately).

xmiles wrote:

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Even though I sincerely dislike Hilary, as time has gone on, I've seen what an ignorant buffoon Trump is. Hopefully he's done himself out of a job this coming November.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

If you want me to be really pedantic then here you are - in order to become the PM he had to be an MP.  In order to be an MP he had to be voted in by his constituents at an election.  Even before that stage, in order to stand as a candidate for that election he had to be voted in by the Conservative members of that constituency.

So he's been democratically elected by a majority at all stages, just to be even there to become the PM in the first place.

So stick that in your pipe!

We all know what I was talking about - Boris was seen to be the lesser of two evils by the electorate at the GE and the same in America with Trump over Hilary.

Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

Unfortunately.

(Probably why I'm non political and don't vote).

None of which alters the fact that you did say it! Just admit you didn't express yourself clearly and we can all move on.