This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
You couldn't make this up. No one would believe you.
BBC News - Alok Sharma: Cabinet minister tested for virus after being taken ill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303
6
1
In reply to Removed User:
Oh for it to be Rees-Mogg.
23
7
In reply to Removed User:
It's madness. let's make 650 people mingle in the same building and then go back to their hometowns all over the country.
12
In reply to Removed User:
Let’s just turn Parliament into a museum celebrating the developments and hiccups on the ongoing road to democracy and let’s have a nice new building fit for purpose alongside proportional representation and ditching the lords for something more democratic . This would show the world we are not shackled to the past and that the road to democracy is always ongoing.
51
2
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Apparently in the HoC they have to have people constantly patrolling on the lookout for fires 24/7. The virus is the perfect opportunity to sort out a replacement building.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/new-pictures-crumbling-parliame...
4
1
In reply to Red Rover:
> It's madness. let's make 650 people mingle in the same building and then go back to their hometowns all over the country.
It's not just the mingling in parliament itself, all the travel and hotel nights are themselves a risk. There is no question the MPs from districts far from London will spread this if they are made to commute to London.
UK just had 359 Covid deaths, 35 more that all the EU27 combined. According to the FT total excess deaths due to Covid in the UK are at 62,000.
If the cabinet had any shame they'd resign. All of them, and their senior advisors.
27
7
In reply to Neil Williams:
> Oh for it to be Rees-Mogg.
Covid 19 wasn't around in the Edwardian era he inhabits.
14
In reply to GrahamD:
He could always call it smallpox or something.
6
In reply to Red Rover:
> Apparently in the HoC they have to have people constantly patrolling on the lookout for fires 24/7. The virus is the perfect opportunity to sort out a replacement building.
Or not. How about moving debate and voting wholly online permanently, with debate being a combination of Zoom type sessions and more formalised online forums of some kind? Then they could live permanently in their constituencies and serve them far better.
Post edited at 07:59
8
4
In reply to Neil Williams:
Good governance needs personal contacts between politicians, both parliamentarians and members of government.
Maybe less obviously so in FPTP systems, but in PR systems where changing coalitions are the rule, informal contacts between parliamentarians that are on opposites now but may have to collaborate later are absolutely invaluable.
CB
18
In reply to Removed User:
There's a video of him speaking in parliament. He's sweating so much he needs to wipe his face every two seconds. Sweating like a pig and looking like sh*t in the middle of a pandemic and nobody tells him to f*ck off home.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1268294820876955648
And if a guy is sweating that much you'd think an infra-red camera on the door would spot he had fever.
Post edited at 08:27
16
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> There's a video of him speaking in parliament. He's sweating so much he needs to wipe his face every two seconds. Sweating like a pig and looking like sh*t in the middle of a pandemic and nobody tells him to f*ck off home.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. According to Brandon Lewis on R4 this morning it might be hay fever.
3
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Sorry to disappoint you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52924944
Talk about shoot first.....
3
1
In reply to Removed User:
I saw this reported too. What I don't understand if he's obviously ill why did he go in? Cummings talked about going in when he was ill or might be ill, same seems to be the case with others. WTF is going on? These people can't really be as stupid as they appear to be... can they?
7
1
In reply to Gone for good:
A negative test does not mean he doesn't have Covid-19
Edit - he's been tested only 1 day after onset of symptoms - this is way too early and greatly increases the risk of a false negative.
Post edited at 21:28
6
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Sorry to disappoint you
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08fvs16
sensitivity of test only 70%, ie when patient has virus, it gives a false negative 3 times in 10; more if done before day 3 of symptoms.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treat...
Self-isolate if:
you have any symptoms of coronavirus (a high temperature, a new, continuous cough or a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste)
Talk about shoot first...
Post edited at 21:54
7
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
What are the rules in England?
Should everyone that came in contact with him self isolate?
1
In reply to Removed User:
> What are the rules in England?
If you are experiencing symptoms, you should pack yourself and family in a car and drive 260 miles to stay with vulnerable relatives. It's what any responsible father would do.
Post edited at 22:06
22
In reply to Removed User:
apparently not:
You may want to tell people you've been in close contact with in the past 48 hours that you might have coronavirus.
What does close contact mean?
They do not need to self-isolate unless they're contacted by the NHS Test and Trace service. But they should take extra care to follow social distancing advice, including washing their hands often.
he shouldn’t have been there though:
do not go to work, school or public places – work from home if you can
Edit: captain paranoia put it better...
Post edited at 22:09
3
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> Edit: captain paranoia put it better...
Only, of course, they have now changed the regulations so that what was completely legal and what any responsible father would do is now expressly forbidden under the revised rules. That change in regulations took 8 days...
3
In reply to GrahamD:
> Covid 19 wasn't around in the Edwardian era he inhabits.
Typhoid, would suit him best.
In reply to Gone for good:
> Sorry to disappoint you.
> Talk about shoot first.....
It doesn't really matter though, does it?
Luckily, this time it wasn't Covid, that doesn't mean it won't be Covid next time.
2
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> Talk about shoot first...
No. The guy felt ill and had a fever in the middle of a pandemic. That may not be enough to be formally instructed to isolate for 14 days but it is certainly enough not to be admitted to a building or to realise yourself that you could have Covid and should go home.
There's an argument that people with hay fever symptoms should be asked to take extra precautions because if they had the virus as well as the allergy sneezing is a violent expulsion of air that can spread droplets way beyond 2m.
Also, his test could be a false negative or he could be lying about the result. Admitting he had coronavirus would involve the entire cabinet and PM being told to isolate for 14 days and pretty much scupper the government's plans to reopen parliament, what do you reckon the Tories would do in those circumstances?
Post edited at 22:54
11
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think you meant to reply to Wanderer100, I was agreeing with you....
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Oops - yes.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> It's not just the mingling in parliament itself, all the travel and hotel nights are themselves a risk. There is no question the MPs from districts far from London will spread this if they are made to commute to London.
At least if the commuting MP's were stopped going to London, they won't be spreading the virus to the millions of people who have no choice other than travelling around the country for work. Those commuters can do a better job of virus transmission, than a few hundred MP's could.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Also, his test could be a false negative or he could be lying about the result. Admitting he had coronavirus would involve the entire cabinet and PM being told to isolate for 14 days and pretty much scupper the government's plans to reopen parliament, what do you reckon the Tories would do in those circumstances?
What do I reckon they would do ?
Lie through their teeth is the usual practice isn't it.
7
In reply to The Lemming:
> At least if the commuting MP's were stopped going to London, they won't be spreading the virus …
Maybe now the commuting MP's should be kept IN London, so that they don't infect the countryside with the virus they may well have caught in the chamber or division lobbies/queues. Especially any MP's for Cumbria, Devon, Cornwall, The Peak District, Wales & Scotland.
5
In reply to fred99:
If MPs are essential to the effective running of the country, then why aren't they all holed up in a little Lockdown community village where they can eat, sleep, work and fornicate at their leisure?
They could all take over a big hotel to live in and be shuttled to-and-from the hotel to Westminster Palace to do their vital work of importance.
Similar measures could be done for all the Lords. Just think of all the £300 a day savings could be made with the Lords living on site?
Rather that a big hotel for the lords, a suitable Residential/Nursing home could be requisitioned for their needs.
6
In reply to The Lemming:
I must admit that when the expenses scandal hit a few years ago, my first reaction was to wonder why they don't have a tower block or such like nearby with single bedroom flats for each MP for a constituency outside of London.
This would mean NO inflated expenses, NO second homes on the taxpayer, complete security for all MP's without having to provide separate security for each of the "vulnerable" ones, and right now; a perfectly safe environment to live and work in.
Now why wouldn't they go for that I wonder, could it be ; NO inflated expenses, NO second homes on the taxpayer, NOWHERE for any shenanigans,...….
2
In reply to fred99:
Or possibly it maybe better for them to be living in the wider community so they might possibly discover the price of a pint of milk 😏
In reply to fred99:
>”a tower block or such like nearby with single bedroom flats for each MP for a constituency outside of London”
If you are refurbishing such a block for such a purpose, I can line you up with a really cheap cladding contractor. I’m pretty sure “common sense“ will mitigate for any perceived fire risk concerns.
Post edited at 19:32
1
In reply to fred99:
> Now why wouldn't they go for that I wonder, could it be ; NO inflated expenses, NO second homes on the taxpayer, NOWHERE for any shenanigans,...….
Security risk for a missile?
1
In reply to The Lemming:
> > Now why wouldn't they go for that I wonder, could it be ; NO inflated expenses, NO second homes on the taxpayer, NOWHERE for any shenanigans,...….
> Security risk for a missile?
In that case Westminster itself is a prime target.
Has anyone investigated the idea of working remotely from Westminster, as it would be wonderfully more secure. Now I wonder if such working is possible ?
Maybe we should it forward to the "Leader of the House" as a suggestion ??
Post edited at 20:21
In reply to fred99:
> In that case Westminster itself is a prime target.
I'm sure somebody tried to blow Westminster up years ago.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
The good thing about missiles is you don't have to sneak them into the basement.
Not that I'm condoning the bombing of Westminster. Controlled demolition would be much more suitable given the state of the building.
In reply to The Lemming:
> I'm sure somebody tried to blow Westminster up years ago.
Come back Guido, all is forgiven.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...