Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer

[firlandsfarm]

I've heard (Sky News) that they changed the method of counting to ensure they meet their target. Less than 85,000 actually reached the lab, over 20,000 were only dispatched. Either way, they should put their energy into managing the crisis and saving lives, not faces.

My understanding is that 122,347 tests were "provided in the 24 hours to 9am on May 1st" (source: the anti Conservative Daily Mirror so I doubt that's a massaged figure). And all critics said we need to test more to save lives … it's the critics faces that need saving!

[Derek27]

I've heard (Sky News) that they changed the method of counting to ensure they meet their target. Less than 85,000 actually reached the lab, over 20,000 were only dispatched. Either way, they should put their energy into managing the crisis and saving lives, not faces.

My understanding is that 122,347 tests were "provided in the 24 hours to 9am on May 1st" (source: the anti Conservative Daily Mirror so I doubt that's a massaged figure). And all critics said we need to test more to save lives … it's the critics faces that need saving!

The question is, did they change the way the figures are produced? I'm not saying they did but that's what Sky News said off memory. Either way, it's purely academic and just a distraction from the real cause. Nobody would have cared if they tested 95,000.

[firlandsfarm]

The question is, did they change the way the figures are produced? I'm not saying they did but that's what Sky News said off memory. Either way, it's purely academic and just a distraction from the real cause. Nobody would have cared if they tested 95,000.

Agreed … the BBC figure just broadcast was 40,000 "in the post"! And they have to save face otherwise the media and the opposition will keep harping back to it and that would distract from the real task.

[Derek27]

The question is, did they change the way the figures are produced? I'm not saying they did but that's what Sky News said off memory. Either way, it's purely academic and just a distraction from the real cause. Nobody would have cared if they tested 95,000.

Agreed … the BBC figure just broadcast was 40,000 "in the post"! And they have to save face otherwise the media and the opposition will keep harping back to it and that would distract from the real task.

The media and viewers getting distracted from the real task is not an issue. The issue is the health secretary distracting himself from his duties to achieve a target, and a pat on the back.

[wearthefoxhat]

I've heard (Sky News) that they changed the method of counting to ensure they meet their target. Less than 85,000 actually reached the lab, over 20,000 were only dispatched. Either way, they should put their energy into managing the crisis and saving lives, not faces.

My understanding is that 122,347 tests were "provided in the 24 hours to 9am on May 1st" (source: the anti Conservative Daily Mirror so I doubt that's a massaged figure). And all critics said we need to test more to save lives … it's the critics faces that need saving!

The question is, did they change the way the figures are produced? I'm not saying they did but that's what Sky News said off memory. Either way, it's purely academic and just a distraction from the real cause. Nobody would have cared if they tested 95,000.

They covered themselves by using the word "provided."

Wait a minute, you're both right.

agree.jpg

[firlandsfarm]

Agreed … the BBC figure just broadcast was 40,000 "in the post"! And they have to save face otherwise the media and the opposition will keep harping back to it and that would distract from the real task.

The media and viewers getting distracted from the real task is not an issue. The issue is the health secretary distracting himself from his duties to achieve a target, and a pat on the back.

The media is not getting distracted, they are causing the distraction. Give them and the opposition the opportunity to waste Ministerial time in the future over whether the target was or was not hit is the distraction. Perhaps if the country stopped wasting such time and got behind the Government it would leave more time for the real jobs. They were criticised for not having a testing target, they were then ridiculed for setting too high a target that they would never reach and now they have more than achieved that target they are being criticised for how they achieved it! Criticising someone over their means of achieving a target is a hell of a lot easier than achieving the target when the media and opposition are totally against you doing so.

[Archery1969]

Well, looks like Boris has strongly hinted that there will be no austerity part 2, so the only way to fix the public purse will be to raise taxes, which i think is a good thing.

Will we be potentially looking at the following changes in tax rates ?

Current
Coporate Tax: 19%
Personal Allowance: £12,500
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%

Future
Corporate Tax: 22%
Personal Allowance: £15,000
Basic: 25%
Higher: 45%
Additional: 50%

[firlandsfarm]

Well, looks like Boris has strongly hinted that there will be no austerity part 2, so the only way to fix the public purse will be to raise taxes, which i think is a good thing.

Will we be potentially looking at the following changes in tax rates ?

Current
Coporate Tax: 19%
Personal Allowance: £12,500
Basic: 20%
Higher: 40%
Additional: 45%

Future
Corporate Tax: 22%
Personal Allowance: £15,000
Basic: 25%
Higher: 45%
Additional: 50%

Agree with most of that in principle except maybe a higher uplift for the higher incomes and/or a lower uplift for the lower levels.

[staker72]

Definately will not do the 50%, cant see corporate over 20. not likly to increase personal allowences above inflation

[superfrank]

Well, looks like Boris has strongly hinted that there will be no austerity part 2, so the only way to fix the public purse will be to raise taxes, which i think is a good thing.

I missed austerity part 1, what happened?!

Osborne and Cameron did a great job with the public finances - not aggressive enough for me, but they got us moving back in the right direction, i.e. living within our means after the disaster of the Labour years and the financial crisis.

Surely tax rises are a form of "austerity" aren't they?

Inheritance tax was raised to 80% after WWII - I'd do it again and introduce some wealth taxes and chunky taxes on foreign property ownership - how very socialist!

We could also slash the foreign aid budget (most of which is wasted) and save £10bn a year (just throw away £4.6bn a year instead!).

Increasing taxes on income disincentivises work - never a good idea.

Shaun and Derek will no doubt reply with something about the death rate of tramps under Osborne with a dollop of economic illiteracy and sentimentality.

[Emmson]

Shaun and Derek will no doubt reply with something about the death rate of tramps under Osborne with a dollop of economic illiteracy and sentimentality.

That was added later by superfrank, reprehensible if I may say so.

[superfrank]

Shaun and Derek will no doubt reply with something about the death rate of tramps under Osborne with a dollop of economic illiteracy and sentimentality.

That was added later by superfrank, reprehensible if I may say so.

I do apologise! - I was amusing myself with that. But I have taken a fair amount from them in the past and kept it civil.

[greenmark]

"Increasing taxes on income disincentivises work "
So why did Roosevelt raise taxes after WW2. And it worked. The US is pretty successful, don't you think?
Isn't the theory that, once normality (or each increment of) returns, democratic capitalism will flood into the available opportunities.
There is no better system (in my lifetime).
It can be brutal, but it's very responsive.

[Derek27]

Shaun and Derek will no doubt reply with something about the death rate of tramps under Osborne with a dollop of economic illiteracy and sentimentality.

That was added later by superfrank, reprehensible if I may say so.

I do apologise! - I was amusing myself with that. But I have taken a fair amount from them in the past and kept it civil.

I take it 'tramps' is just a derogatory term for office workers and ex-military personal who risked their lives for the sake of this country, who through no fault of their own, ended up living on the streets. I've known a few such people, very decent and selfless, despite their hardship. You may find it amusing to joke about their death rates as though their lives are less important than yours but I doubt many will share that amusement or view.

[Archery1969]

That was added later by superfrank, reprehensible if I may say so.

I do apologise! - I was amusing myself with that. But I have taken a fair amount from them in the past and kept it civil.

I take it 'tramps' is just a derogatory term for office workers and ex-military personal who risked their lives for the sake of this country, who through no fault of their own, ended up living on the streets. I've known a few such people, very decent and selfless, despite their hardship. You may find it amusing to joke about their death rates as though their lives are less important than yours but I doubt many will share that amusement or view.

+ 1