O/T - General Politics thread

The Covid tier regions don't seem to make sense. For example, Lancaster has a lower infection rate and faster rate of decrease than London yet is in tier 3 whereas London is in tier 2.

Five key indicators form the basis of the criteria that the government has used to decide which locations are in which tiers:

Case detection rates in all age groups.
Case detection rates in the over-60s.
The rate at which cases are rising or falling.
The number of positive cases detected as a percentage of tests taken, known as positivity rate.
Pressure on the NHS.

Thanks. You've forgotten the main one, is the region in the north?

The bizarre one for me is Slough. Whereas everywhere else seems to be tiered by region (eg Bristol includes a chunk to the north and south of the city, the Medway towns include the much lower county of Kent), Slough is on its own, the rest of Berkshire stays in tier 2, even nearby Windsor. Wonder who lives there?

God this site can be a yawn. Moan, moan moan..........

The bizarre one for me is Slough. Whereas everywhere else seems to be tiered by region (eg Bristol includes a chunk to the north and south of the city, the Medway towns include the much lower county of Kent), Slough is on its own, the rest of Berkshire stays in tier 2, even nearby Windsor. Wonder who lives there?

Perhaps Slough Comprehensive School is the reason rather than Windsor?

Five key indicators form the basis of the criteria that the government has used to decide which locations are in which tiers:

Case detection rates in all age groups.
Case detection rates in the over-60s.
The rate at which cases are rising or falling.
The number of positive cases detected as a percentage of tests taken, known as positivity rate.
Pressure on the NHS.

Thanks. You've forgotten the main one, is the region in the north?

Chips on shoulders is also a category apparently.

Chips on shoulders is also a category apparently.

Never really understood the chippy northerner thing until I lived up here.

There’s a story in the Mail I think tomorrow which says something on the lines of “it’s enough to make you choke in your sangria. From 1 January half a million Brits can only stay in their holiday homes for a maximum of 90 days at a time... for these families their dreams have turned to dust.”

We’ll lie to you about how awful the EU are, well tell you to ignore negative stories as fake news/project fear, will touch on your xenophobia and encourage you to vote Brexit but when the issues raised are suddenly realised we’ll do an outcry piece on drams turned to dust.

Are people really that thick they fall for this bull crap?

My prediction - this will be blamed on “EU bullies” and our response should be “we weren’t bullied during the war and we won’t be bullied now”.

Getting a good Brexit deal for Britain was doomed from the beginning with a Frenchman heading the EU negotiations. This afternoon's match might mean more than just the result.

Getting a good Brexit deal for Britain was doomed from the beginning with a Frenchman heading the EU negotiations. This afternoon's match might mean more than just the result.

Yes that was the problem with getting a Brexit deal. What happened to Boris Oven ready deal that everyone voted for him to deliver at the last election? Did it turn out to be undercooked and missing a few key ingredients?

Getting a good Brexit deal for Britain was doomed from the beginning with a Frenchman heading the EU negotiations. This afternoon's match might mean more than just the result.

I was wondering when the "blame the europeans" was going to start. Stating it will fail just "because he's a Frenchman" is a very tabloid response which I suspect you mentioned slightly tongue in cheek rather than being taken seriously (which would be xenophobic).

It's interesting that the EU have to corral 27 countries to their view and have had a consistent negotiators throughout this process whereas we have had David Davis, Raab, another chap who I've forgotten, and now Frost, sorry Baron Frost.