UK Politics - It's a bit glitchy

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, Hereward said:

Obviously it’s worth bearing in mind that the target voters are not necessarily expert in political terminology, but an avowedly libertarian stance is not going to work on the target voters in the midlands and north. They’re largely communitarian, i.e left wing economically but very right-wing socially and culturally.

What is more important to them. Some sorta of constructed British Identity (that why I mentioned the ouvert racist undertones) or their economics.

I'd have my money on identity politics. You mentioned Corbyn's economic policies being more in line with them, than arguably any other election manifest in recent memory. But Corbyn just being totally unpalatable to them.

[Hereward]

40 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What is more important to them. Some sorta of constructed British Identity (that why I mentioned the ouvert racist undertones) or their economics.

I'd have my money on identity politics. You mentioned Corbyn's economic policies being more in line with them, than arguably any other election manifest in recent memory. But Corbyn just being totally unpalatable to them.

You may be right, but my point is that an avowedly libertarian stance is in conflict with that. Farage is a conman, like Trump. He’s probably not stupid enough to place the very thing least likely to appeal to his potential supporters front and centre. 

[ants]

12 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Another is they have significantly less international travel than the US and Western Europe. Sure New Zealand in particular probably did manage things better than the rest of the West but geographical luck is a big factor.

That certainly holds true for most of Europe which would have incredible difficulties closing borders.  The UK could have easily closed theirs.  They didn't want to do that due to the economic impact.  It was a choice.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

NZ and Aus got hit a bit later and with lower numbers. And there is a massive difference between the UK and Victoria. For starters the state govt structure and ability for states to shut borders puts a lot more pressure on Vic to respond and achieve close to elimination like the rest of the states than for the UK with it's single national govt and European neighbours having a similarly difficult time of it.

This seems to have a slightly weird view of things.  Victoria wasn't pressured to do what it did, it chose to.  In fact the pressure from the Federal Government was to have a lighter lockdown and they kept saying to open up sooner.  The Federal Government didn't want the economic hit.  

Australia got hit with lower numbers because they banned travel sooner and acted faster.  

[lessthanluke]

So how long does everyone think this next lockdowns going to last? 

I'm thinking at least 2 months. Probably 3 or 4 though. 

[Maltaran]

5 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

So how long does everyone think this next lockdowns going to last? 

I'm thinking at least 2 months. Probably 3 or 4 though. 

6 weeks at most because they won’t want a lockdown over Christmas, and then a new one in mid January when they blame us all for not locking down over Christmas.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

So how long does everyone think this next lockdowns going to last? 

I'm thinking at least 2 months. Probably 3 or 4 though. 

The question really is, why would it end?

[Which Tyler]

25 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

6 weeks at most because they won’t want a lockdown over Christmas, and then a new one in mid January when they blame us all for not locking down over Christmas.

Exactly this. 4 weeks isn't going to be enough; and anything over 6 weeks means closing for Christmas.

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The question really is, why would it end?

If/When pressure on the NHS reduces. It's the only thing they're interested in during this pandemic (well, this and finding someone to blame that the press / people will go along with).

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

If/When pressure on the NHS reduces. It's the only thing they're interested in during this pandemic (well, this and finding someone to blame that the press / people will go along with).

Boris' exit strategy appears to be to get levels down to a point where Track and Trace becomes effective. That sounds good if there was any confidence it works or it would keep numbers low. We already know most people are not isolating when instructed to, we know there are serious issues with T&T. So really this lockdown could last 4 weeks, we reopen, then we lockdown again repeatedly until there is a vaccine or T&T miraculously works or the lockdown doesn't ever really end. Either way this approach doesn't appear sustainable.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

So how long does everyone think this next lockdowns going to last? 

I'm thinking at least 2 months. Probably 3 or 4 though. 

It's still probably better than our freedumb here in the states.

[A wilding]

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Having seen just how many incidences of violence were brought up you have to wonder what Depp was thinking even going to court. 

Just to answer this:

Because the UK is a very friendly place for wealthy people using the law to silence those who try to make uncomfortable facts about them public (and Depp's lawyers are leading proponents of such cases). Depp was just unlucky that Heard had the resources and will to fight the case all the way. Most likely he thought (or his lawyers told him) she would cave or be overwhelmed.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Just to answer this:

Because the UK is a very friendly place for wealthy people using the law to silence those who try to make uncomfortable facts about them public (and Depp's lawyers are leading proponents of such cases). Depp was just unlucky that Heard had the resources and will to fight the case all the way. Most likely he thought (or his lawyers told him) she would cave or be overwhelmed.

I think what you mean by this, is that UK libel laws mean that the burden of proof is on the accuser not on the defendant. He must have been pretty confident there wouldn't have been enough evidence to provide that proof. However seeing as there were at least 14 incidents of violence and abuse there is really no way he could have come out of it with his reputation intact, even if he won the case. I think the guy clearly is in the middle of a mental breakdown. 

[karaddin]

Or he's just a rich asshole that's used to getting his way in all things, particularly where his ex partner is concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if the idea he could lose didn't occur to him.

[Heartofice]

Just now, karaddin said:

Or he's just a rich asshole that's used to getting his way in all things, particularly where his ex partner is concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if the idea he could lose didn't occur to him.

Possibly. I do think that just from reading accounts in the case, the guy is a mess, like Fear and Loathing writ large. He has become an absolute monster, and he doesn't appear to have even noticed.

[ljkeane]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

However seeing as there were at least 14 incidents of violence and abuse there is really no way he could have come out of it with his reputation intact, even if he won the case. I think the guy clearly is in the middle of a mental breakdown. 

I don't know I don't think the point was necessarily to win, although I'm sure that would have been nice, I think it was to frame things in a way that would allow people to justify hiring him again. You're right with 14 incidents of violence I don't think there was any way they were going to be able to get away with saying he never assaulted her. I think the point was to get out the incidents were she may have injured him and try and frame it as a back and forth rather than just 'Johnny Depp wife beater'. There was a lot of breathless reporting on Amber Heard's alleged actions earlier in the case and I'd guess trying to make that stick was what it was all about. 

[karaddin]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Possibly. I do think that just from reading accounts in the case, the guy is a mess, like Fear and Loathing writ large. He has become an absolute monster, and he doesn't appear to have even noticed.

To be fair these aren't even mutually exclusive. The guy I described could very well go to pieces when he loses control and isn't automatically winning all the time.

[Which Tyler]

41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Boris' exit strategy appears to be to get levels down to a point where Track and Trace becomes effective. That sounds good if there was any confidence it works or it would keep numbers low. We already know most people are not isolating when instructed to, we know there are serious issues with T&T. So really this lockdown could last 4 weeks, we reopen, then we lockdown again repeatedly until there is a vaccine or T&T miraculously works or the lockdown doesn't ever really end. Either way this approach doesn't appear sustainable.

I disagree.

For one thing, if his aim is to get levels down to a point where Track and Trace becomes effective, then we'll be in lockdown until there are zero ass of domestic transmission, and all ports of entry are closed - which I don't see being the case. Also, we'd have gone straight back into lockdown in June when it was first obvious that our est and trace system is not fit for purpose.

Given everything about how he resisted the first lockdown, eased the first lockdown and resisted the second lockdown (not to mention comments about herd immunity) - trying to gain herd immunity (whether through infection or vaccine) whilst keeping the number of hospital beds required below the number of hospital beds available is the only thing that makes any sense.

 

On your second point (self isolation), we know no such thing. There is a massive distance between "most people" and "some people" or even "too many people". Whether people are obeying self-isolation requests is nothing to do with T&T - which is utterly dysfunctional in and of itself.

 

I suspect that we will having rolling episodes of lockdown - each time the NHS gets close to capacity. Going by the first 2 times around, these will be enacted at the last minute, and allowing larger spikes than would be suggested by the epidemiologists; and self-defeating in terms of keeping the economy ticking over (better to have a 2 week lockdown every 3 months than a 6 week lockdown every 5 months).

The chances of a sustainable approach vanished 9 months ago.

[mormont]

29 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I don't know I don't think the point was necessarily to win, although I'm sure that would have been nice, I think it was to frame things in a way that would allow people to justify hiring him again. You're right with 14 incidents of violence I don't think there was any way they were going to be able to get away with saying he never assaulted her. I think the point was to get out the incidents were she may have injured him and try and frame it as a back and forth rather than just 'Johnny Depp wife beater'. There was a lot of breathless reporting on Amber Heard's alleged actions earlier in the case and I'd guess trying to make that stick was what it was all about. 

Given that he's suing her personally in the US as well, and given that Depp's strategy for the trial was to make it entirely about Heard - to the point where, in a libel trial notionally against The Sun, his team didn't even call a single witness from The Sun, not even the reporter who wrote the article he was suing over - I think it's plausible to view Depp's motives as being mostly personal and likely about trying to hurt Heard. 

[polishgenius]

I mean let's be fair and honest here: the things Depp's team brought up, though in large part not relevant to the trial, make it very likely that she was also abusive and used to getting her own way etc.

That's just not in any way proof that he didn't abuse her and it turned out he didn't have the evidence necessary to prove his innocence there.

On the other hand:

 

2 hours ago, A wilding said:

Depp was just unlucky that Heard had the resources and will to fight the case all the way. Most likely he thought (or his lawyers told him) she would cave or be overwhelmed.

 

this idea doesn't really stick because as Mormont points out he wasn't suing Heard, he was suing a newspaper owned by the most influential media owner in the world. He is suing her in the US, a case which isn't done yet, but if I understand anything about the differences between UK and US law it'll be unlikely that he wins that one if he lost this one.

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I mean let's be fair and honest here: the things Depp's team brought up, though in large part not relevant to the trial, make it very likely that she was also abusive and used to getting her own way etc.

Well I think the initial stories pushed to the press by his team was that actually he was the victim and that she was the one abusing him. I think its pretty clear that had a very messed up relationship and neither one of them came out of it looking good.

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I disagree.

For one thing, if his aim is to get levels down to a point where Track and Trace becomes effective, then we'll be in lockdown until there are zero ass of domestic transmission, and all ports of entry are closed - which I don't see being the case. Also, we'd have gone straight back into lockdown in June when it was first obvious that our est and trace system is not fit for purpose.

Given everything about how he resisted the first lockdown, eased the first lockdown and resisted the second lockdown (not to mention comments about herd immunity) - trying to gain herd immunity (whether through infection or vaccine) whilst keeping the number of hospital beds required below the number of hospital beds available is the only thing that makes any sense.

I think if there is one thing we do know its that 'the plan' changes on a regular basis and there really has been little to no consistent strategy since the outbreak. It has changed as the data (which in of itself appears mostly quite dubious and lacking in transparency) has changed. One of the most galling things about Boris is his absolute lack of courage, he hasn't stuck to a single principle and has caved on every single occasion. 

If the answer to 'Protecting the NHS' is a countrywide lockdown every time there is a growth in cases in certain areas then we are basically fucked.