Damned if you do.......

[Mice!]

So Starmer comes on the telly saying we should have a 'circuit breaker ' mini lockdown over the October half term, which has been mentioned before by the Scientists which we are told is the advice being followed,  only it's not as they said this weeks ago.

Seems Gov is trying to stop the spread with localised conditions which don't seem to be working while trying to keep the economy going,  so its damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I was expecting another lockdown,  a few weeks seemed the logical thing to do to stop another spike but now Labour have suggested it I cant see Gov going down that route, so is it a double bluff, or have Labour taken a leaf out of Nicola sturgeons book by doing what's going to be done but doing it first?

Liverpool being put into lockdown makes little sense when Manchester isn't,  although that's apparently being looked at, closing pubs in one area just means folk will go somewhere else,  Derby day Saturday so your not telling me folk won't want to be out watching the game in the pub, which must have had some baring on the decision to put Liverpool in tier 3

Labour must be rubbing their hands at the moment,  after they were thrashed in the Election the longer this situation goes on the worse the Tories are going to look.

[WalkedUp]

Grand master Sir Kier Starmer playing a discovered attack whilst BoJo is looking for his first “jump”. 

Kier Starmer in a win-win position. Public option and scientific advice is for two week lock down across the UK. Government bottles it. KS gives a proper grown up press conference within 24hrs to demand a lockdown. 

Option A - no lockdown, Covid certainly rises. KS “proved right” and appears to the nation as the “man with the plan”. 

Option B - Gov announce lockdown, KS “proved right” and appears to the nation as the “man with the plan”. 

I just can’t see an alternative. I loathe the thought of a Labour government as the masses are baying to destroy our sport and heritage, but this bloke Starmer is going to need a better man than Boris to be beat. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by WalkedUp

[Scully]

We can’t have scientists dictating policy. To do so would make them accountable, and only politicians should be accountable. Scientists can advise, but the decisions of what to do with that advice has to come from politicians as they have to try to find a balance between minimising the effects and spread of the virus whilst minimising its effect on the economy and employment, ensuring the NHS can cope and a myriad other things, one of which is possible mass non-compliance and civil unrest.
Scientists don’t have to consider any of the above. 

[WalkedUp]

The effect upon employment, economy, NHS are all modelled by statistician scientists! Different scientists to those modelling the CV19 numbers and effects of various interventions upon R rate. However I agree it is for our politicians to weigh these competing concerns and come to a balanced outcome then ensure it is followed. 

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

The effect upon employment, economy, NHS are all modelled by statistician scientists! Different scientists to those modelling the CV19 numbers and effects of various interventions upon R rate. However I agree it is for our politicians to weigh these competing concerns and come to a balanced outcome then ensure it is followed. 

I had no idea statisticians were deemed scientists, but if that’s what they are then fair enough, but my point still stands, they can’t dictate policy. 

[Walker570]

The good news is I'm out for my first driven day at the partridges on Saturday.

[Mice!]

23 minutes ago, Scully said:

We can’t have scientists dictating policy. To do so would make them accountable, and only politicians should be accountable.

I agree on both points but Boris has said many times they are following the scientific data or advice,  only their not.

They put the whole of Lancashire in tighter restrictions except Blackpool which was nuts, now Liverpool but not Manchester,  it's so easy to head to Manchester from Liverpool,  same as the pubs etc being shut in Bolton but open elsewhere. 

I was hoping they would have just said the Northwest was shut for two weeks then review it, try and get on top of things otherwise there seems little point.

53 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

Option A - no lockdown, Covid certainly rises. KS “proved right” and appears to the nation as the “man with the plan”. 

Option B - Gov announce lockdown, KS “proved right” and appears to the nation as the “man with the plan”. 

He can't lose can he.

[WalkedUp]

11 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

The good news is I'm out for my first driven day at the partridges on Saturday.

I’m very jealous. My shoots are all in lockdown counties in Wales 😭

[JohnfromUK]

9 hours ago, Mice! said:

He can't lose can he.

Unfortunately - that is the case.

When you are not in government, your policies are not put into practice ......... and therefore cannot be proved wrong.

When you are in government - every policy you introduce gets tested; some go right (and often never get mentioned as successes), some go wrong (to howls from the gutter press) - all in full public view.

• If it goes badly, the opposition parties can crow loudly that it would have been fine if it had been done their way
• If it goes well, the opposition can claim it would have been even better if it had been done their way

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Sir Kier Starmer, nothing of substance!

[WalkedUp]

The opposition’s job is done for itself as you have a fundamental conflict in that a party that has espoused individual libertarianism and is against ‘big government’ is in power during a crisis in which individual freedom must be curtailed and ‘big government’ is needed. Sir Kier Starmer can sit back and poke the fire occasional but the conflict is at the core of this government schism between party politics and the interests of the country. Obviously it doesn’t help that the fool BoJo is in charge. I’m not even a Labour voter, whilst almost everyone I know is staunch Tory and pretty much every one has turned against Boris in 2020. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by WalkedUp

[Smokersmith]

With opposition to lockdown, and opposition to not locking down ... there isn't a win here as the OP states.

Hopefully most sensible folks will see this.

[WalkedUp]

The UK government now has the lowest CV response approval rating. To govern you need to get people behind your direction. It doesn’t help if you are rudderless. With indirection 50:50 split of opinion inevitable. Compare and contrast with NZ. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by WalkedUp

[Demonic69]

10 hours ago, Mice! said:

They put the whole of Lancashire in tighter restrictions except Blackpool which was nuts, now Liverpool but not Manchester,  it's so easy to head to Manchester from Liverpool,  same as the pubs etc being shut in Bolton but open elsewhere.

I bet there'll be a much larger police presence, then the Gov will have stats to show people don't listen, and chose to head in and out of high risk areas as they please. That's what this strategic lock-down looks like to me, an information gathering and control exercise, before a more rigorous lock-down in the future. Or a less strict lockdown based on civil disobedience and a need to get the economy going

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

With opposition to lockdown, and opposition to not locking down ... there isn't a win here as the OP states.

Hopefully most sensible folks will see this.

I think most sensible folks will see it .......... but looking at the reports one sees of people in areas to be locked down all congregating in tightly packed bunches for 'a last good party' suggests that 'sensible folks' aren't at the route of the present problems.

My own view is that IF people had behaved sensibly and everyone had been cautious, things might not be nearly as bad, and although businesses would undoubtedly have had a very quiet time and suffered, it wouldn't have been a shutdown.  However - one thing we have very clearly demonstrated is that a large number are not prepared to be sensible and cautious - and protect everyone - they just want a big party for themselves - just old human selfishness and a 'live for now and live for me' attitude.

[WalkedUp]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

My own view is that IF people had behaved sensibly and everyone had been cautious, things might not be nearly as bad, and although businesses would undoubtedly have had a very quiet time and suffered, it wouldn't have been a shutdown.  However - one thing we have very clearly demonstrated is that a large number are not prepared to be sensible and cautious - and protect everyone - they just want a big party for themselves - just old human selfishness and a 'live for now and live for me' attitude.

I would agree.

[JohnfromUK]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

everyone had been cautious, things might not be nearly as bad, and although businesses would undoubtedly have had a very quiet time and suffered, it wouldn't have been a shutdown.

A slightly more 'general question' on this to the forum in general;

If we accept that the hospitality businesses like pubs, restaurants etc. have to put in place measures that limits the number of seats, drinks and meals sold etc., would we be prepared to pay a few pence more per drink, and a pound or two more a meal - in order to help the businesses survive?  A lot locally have been doing takeaways very busily since April/May.  I don't know how good this has been financially?

I'm not a good example as I rarely eat or drink out (issues with nothing in walking distance, not prepared to drive when I have to abstain), and usually eat out more with friends at their houses (which has also stopped) - but in principle I would certainly be prepared to pay a bit more when I do go as I would be going less often.

So I guess the question is "would you be prepared to pay a bit more for drinks and food from a pub/restaurant to help them through the restricted numbers and opening hours period"?

My answer is a Yes.

Edited October 14, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[Demonic69]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

A slightly more 'general question' on this to the forum in general;

If we accept that the hospitality businesses like pubs, restaurants etc. have to put in place measures that limits the number of seats, drinks and meals sold etc., would we be prepared to pay a few pence more per drink, and a pound or two more a meal - in order to help the businesses survive?  A lot locally have been doing takeaways very busily since April/May.  I don't know how good this has been financially?

I'm not a good example as I rarely eat or drink out (issues with nothing in walking distance, not prepared to drive when I have to abstain), and usually eat out more with friends at their houses (which has also stopped) - but in principle I would certainly be prepared to pay a bit more when I do go as I would be going less often.

So I guess the question is "would you be prepared to pay a bit more for drinks and food from a pub/restaurant to help them through the restricted numbers and opening hours period"?

My answer is a Yes.

My in-laws run a wet-led pub. They have a booking system in place, fewer tables and less than half the capacity they had this time last year. You wear a mask on your way in and whenever you stand up to go to the loo/fag/taxi. They now run table service, so no standing at the bar. Even the outside tables are booked and they'll turn you away if you've no booking and they don't have the space to book you in right then. By 10 the pub is empty, the beer garden and car park are empty and the doors and gates are closed and locked.

They're generally matching last years takings and, in some weeks exceeding some of their best years. It's hard work constantly corralling the less sober of the bunch, but most customers seem to be accepting of the rules and get on with it.

[oscarsdad]

11 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

I’m very jealous. My shoots are all in lockdown counties in Wales 😭

Have you read BASC guidance? You can still go and shoot. 
 

my first syndicate day is a few weeks away yet but living in Notts (just) I was getting nervous but unless something changes should be able to shoot but no meal afterwards. 

[Mice!]

23 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

My in-laws run a wet-led pub. They have a booking system in place, fewer tables and less than half the capacity they had this time last year. You wear a mask on your way in and whenever you stand up to go to the loo/fag/taxi. They now run table service, so no standing at the bar. Even the outside tables are booked and they'll turn you away if you've no booking and they don't have the space to book you in right then. By 10 the pub is empty, the beer garden and car park are empty and the doors and gates are closed and locked.

They're generally matching last years takings and, in some weeks exceeding some of their best years. It's hard work constantly corralling the less sober of the bunch, but most customers seem to be accepting of the rules and get on with it.

That is a perfect example of how this should be handled,  you can still go out enjoy yourself but it's an early night,  unlike the muppets in Liverpool last night.

[JohnfromUK]

24 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

They're generally matching last years takings and, in some weeks exceeding some of their best years.

I'm very glad it is going well for them.  As I said, a lot locally have moved to doing takeaway food (and I think drinks?) - and it is certainly well reviewed, but I don't know how good it is financially.  I assume it can't all be bad or they wouldn't be doing it.

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Demonic69 said:

My in-laws run a wet-led pub. They have a booking system in place, fewer tables and less than half the capacity they had this time last year. You wear a mask on your way in and whenever you stand up to go to the loo/fag/taxi. They now run table service, so no standing at the bar. Even the outside tables are booked and they'll turn you away if you've no booking and they don't have the space to book you in right then. By 10 the pub is empty, the beer garden and car park are empty and the doors and gates are closed and locked.

They're generally matching last years takings and, in some weeks exceeding some of their best years. It's hard work constantly corralling the less sober of the bunch, but most customers seem to be accepting of the rules and get on with it.

The Fountain in Mevagissy is like that, perfectly run and always full. We are happy to go there, and we do  Many others locally I could name too are being well run, I see no advantage in closing the good ones at 10pm. Nothing changes at 10.01pm

The same with the restaurants, there are several well run restaurants in Charlestown that we go to, why should they have to close at 10pm?  

But not all pubs are well run, another pub I know of in Cornwall (which I won't name but I should) the locals, farmers and fishermen, are all standing up at the bar drinking and chattering like there is nothing going on in the world outside. The problem is, nothing is being done about those bad pubs, They are just getting away it and spoiling it for the rest.

[JohnfromUK]

44 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The problem is, nothing is being done about those bad pubs, They are just getting away it and spoiling it for the rest.

Usual situation; the few - spoiling it for the many.

I see Liverpool's mayor has said last nights scenes there have 'shamed the city'.  Well he is right.

[Mice!]

Decision tomorrow on whether Lancashire and Manchester go into level or tier 3 same as Liverpool,  I can't see how they can't but it no doubt means lots of behind the scenes negotiations about what Andy wants no doubt Lancashire as well.

Also on the news this morning they said London could follow as well, it's funny but London doesn't seem to have been mentioned much lately. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Andy Burnham apparently threatening legal action!

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-considering-legal-action-19104290