Totally agree.

Agree on SAGE totally. Someone below or above has said they should be banned from talking to the media, which I definitely agree with.

See my reply to your reply to my post above

I don’t normally reply to replies, but I will here, as your point is the main classical argument against my strong anti lockdown stance.
Firstly, we shouldn’t tolerate a wrong just because it may soon end. If its wrong don’t do it at all, instead of avoiding the issue, because it becomes academic do to being overtaken by other events.
Secondly, you summarise exactly the theme we have had here throughout. I was actually fully behind compliance with the first lockdown, even though it was hard, but only the basis that it was a one off, the reward for which would be no more. Yet at every last single waypoint (and there have been about 20 now), we are told - do this one more thing, and in return you wont have to suffer another bad thing. Observe March lockdown and you wont have to wear masks. We since have to wear masks. Wear masks and you wont have to have a second lockdown. We since had a second lockdown. Suffer that as the app will sort it all. It didn’t work. Don’t worry as test and trace, moonshot, lateral flow, rapid and so on and so on will now end it. None of it works. Suffer tier 1 to avoid tier 2. Suffer tier 2 to avoid tier 3. And so on. We end up every time with no reward, but a promise that if we put up the number 21 on the list we wont have to suffer 22. A week later we are suffering 22.
Which brings us onto the vaccine. As per your post. I think its more likely than not that the vaccine will work to somewhat degrade this situation. But its not certain. I am just saying I think on the balance of probabilities it probably will (as you obviously do too). So we needn’t waste time on things like Oxford has not been approved yet (I expect it to be tomorrow etc).
However, where you are wrong, is on the timing. It will be a minimum of 6 months from today (a minimum) before any sort of return to normal is even trailed. I can spell out why in more detail if you want, although it should really be obvious if you follow the small print of the debate, but just consider two things initially (in addition to that we wont have enough to be any where near by Feb). First, is it going to vaccinate against the new dangerous variant? I don’t know the answer, but just marginally I’d say probably not, or not as well perhaps. Sure, it can probably be tweaked to do that fairly quickly, but fairly quickly means 1-4 months, not a week. And that’s without a further dangerous mutation appearing, which is likely. Second, the left of centre (including very much various members of the scientists advising the Gov), are already positing the hope that mask wearing becomes permanent in the UK, whatever happens with the vaccine. Expect The Guardian to pick up the baton on that one.
Even making a lot of positive assumptions, this will be no where near done by end Feb. I stick with my original post.

So, the left wing Unions, The Guardian and SAGE, aided and abetted of course by the very left wing BBC, want us to close schools in January (as there is nothing else left to close now - they have succeeded with the rest). This will of course mean we wont be able to go to work.
Shall we see what the (supposedly) right wing prime minster decides then. Any bets??
I mean come on, he is actually a right of centre Conservative, and not a health and safety nanny state lib lab dem isn’t he?
Isn’t he…..

Agreed.
But not just for Stratford-on-Avon, for the whole country.
Noticeable that one of the key messages is not stay cooped up in the house in the cold weather 24 hours a day, but to get out and get some fresh air, get out of the house for the day.
The socialist government that we have running the country make perfect conditions for that don’t they, by shutting down every last shop, pub, restaurant, business, national park, public place, and to boot, telling us not to go to work (or anywhere) and indeed not to leave the house.
Of the course the answer is that this government are not running the country. SAGE are a bunch of left wing scientists, whose only remit is to minimise every single transmission of the virus, such virus that so far has only killed 1.5 times the number of people that a bad flu year does. So they are bound to suggest that we all seal ourselves in our cellars for evermore aren’t they. By their own admission they have zero remit on (and thus zero interest in) the economy or people’s mental and physical wellbeing other than as regards COVID. (“SAGE”).
The country is not being run by the government, but instead, in order of left wing bias, is being run by Nicola Sturgeon, SAGE (whose bidding is done by Remainer Hancock) and the Guardian. All gladly livestreamed by the BBC, whose left wing bias exceeds those three put together.
Anyway, no time to say anymore, I need to go and order some more smelly masks, so I can put one on, in case I dare to look out of the window, as someone is passing by - someone who wants to close the schools again, or put the country back another 50 years, on top of the 50 nailed so far. At least I can take comfort that I will paying for all this, when my house, pension pot or ISAs, take the 2% cut, warning of which the government leaked a few weeks back.

Boris is about to accept a bad deal, over no deal, despite saying a few days ago he would do no such thing.
Strange, coming from the man who said he would not cancel Christmas, only to cancel it, a few days later.
Now I think about it, its the same person who said we wouldn't need to wear masks, wouldn't have a first lockdown, wouldn't have a second lockdown, wouldn't have a third lockdown, the first app would work, test and trace would work, Moonshot would work, lateral flow, rapid testing and mass testing would work, the second app would work, we won't close the schools, we've got 40m doses of the vaccine, we will take back control of our waters and our borders....
I could go on. The list of promises knows no boundaries, and is only eclipsed by the sole failure to deliver on a single one of them.
I wont be voting for him again.

Agreed. Guardian reporting he has just caved in on Fishing Quotas.

Quiz for the day: What do you do when you are four weeks away and staring a 100 set majority in the face? Or a 150 seat one. 180 anyone? I will tell you what you do. You do nothing. You don’t do TV debates. You don’t try and make the majority bigger. You put off anything controversial. And most of all, whatever you do, you don’t do anything that is going to totally enrage 90% of your supporters (dementia tax) and allows the other side to control breakfast time TV on the subject for the next week. You don’t rock the boat. You play it safe.
Like most, I find the dementia tax policy, as originally released, repugnant. But whatever I or anyone else thinks about it isn’t really the issue here. The issue is, once again, an issue of management more so than of policy. If you are going to do it, then when you do it? You do it after you have the 150 seat majority, not three weeks before!! People will say that’s not the British way, has to be in the manifesto, that would be a corrupt way of doing things, etc.
So what. Let’s get real here. In politics, increasingly, there is going to have to be a choice between playing by the Queensbury rules on the one hand, or winning, on the other hand. The other side will do it to us at the drop of a hat. People recently into politics may not recognise that, after Miliband’s poor campaign. Don’t look there. Instead look at Blair. He didn’t announce three weeks before the election all the selected unpopular things he intended to do. He got his landslide. Then he proceeded to do whatever he wanted, and was untouchable in doing it.
You might say are you seriously suggesting the Conservatives will not win. No I am not. Although it is by no means a total impossibility. But that’s missing the point of why this election was called. And more importantly what it needs to deliver. Why was it called? Because TM wanted her own mandate in her own image rather than Cameron’s LibDem leaning legacy? Perhaps yes. But a little peripheral. Because she wanted more than a wafer thin majority having to fend off opposition from every angle at every turn (including from within her own party)? Yes, and less peripheral. But still not the main reason. The main reason is that we are about to go head to head with Merkel. And Markel currently has a very strong hand, more so than she was expecting a year ago. The one thing Merkel doesn’t want, is for her opponent to gain an equally strong hand, which a 150 seat majority would deliver. And that will ensure Britain gets a good deal. Which Labour would not deliver, even were they to win the election. So if this election is won by the Conservatives limping over the line with a 60 seat majority, Merkel is going laugh into her sleeve.
Apart from the dementia tax, the only other time that I have gasped at new Conservative policy, or I should really say management, not policy, since May took over, was when we publicly announced we didn’t want Chinese control of UK nuclear infrastructure, just as we needed to big up our extra-EU world ties, and were about to sit down with the Chinese leader for the first time. I don’t actually disagree with the policy there, but again, the management, timing and presentation of it was appalling. And that’s not even mentioning the ludicrous u turns over self-employed, the dementia tax itself, and so on and so on.
I hope I am wrong, and a huge majority materialises anyway. Because a huge majority, not just a reasonable majority, is what is needed. If it does, then Nick Timothy can continue to be let loose without any ‘public perception checking’ of policy announcements first. The inner circle can just pump out unpopular announcements and annoy all and sundry, whenever they feel like it, and playing it safe can go out of the window, because once you have that majority, you can do what you want.
However if a huge majority doesn’t materialise, then I am afraid it is a little too late for someone to close the stable door. And that will look a bit ridiculous wont it, considering the finishing line was so close.

As an ex Tory (and BTW previously a committed Tory, not a swing voter, never having voted for anyone else, and seeing Labour as the enemy), but now UKIP voter, I disagree with the view that UKIP voters want to harm the Tories. I will be voting UKIP but clearly UKIP are not going to win the election or hold a similar balance of power as the LibDems or SNP. So the choice for PM is either DM or DC. As such, I desperately want Cameron to win not Red Ed, and am somewhat dismayed at the seeming lack of any convincing Tory surge, at least not yet. This isnt going to stop me voting UKIP however, and I am happy to admit my voting intention to anyone. Even if it means Labour form the next Government. I never wanted to UKIP, but the Tories have simply lost my vote by moving to the left over the last few years, albeit they now seem to be scrambling back to the centre. I vote on principle, not pragmatic outcomes, i.e a vote for UKIP may well be a vote for Labour in disguise, but if so thats Cameron's fault not mine. Id be interested to know what those who continue to vote for my lifelong party think. It seems to me that, despite UKIP likely only getting a few seats, that there is damage to the Tories here in a big way. Say UKIP have 15% of the vote, and assume that two thirds of that is ex Tory (if not more). If UKIP didn't exist that would be 10% more of the vote which DC would have. Probably enough for a majority. But it does exist. And I ask you, has this conservative experiment of moving to the left been worth it? Cameron should be walking away with this. A weak, accident prone, Labour leader with socialist politics, selected by the unions, against a backdrop where the economy has done better than even the Tories expected it would. This should be a wipe out of Labour as happened with Michael Foot. Instead they are, at worst, still neck and neck. All the Tories had to do was not alienate half of their support, rather than try and entice half of Lib Lab type voters, who will probably not vote Tory anyway even if they perceive the Tory party to have changed and modernised. As I say, I hope DC gets an overall majority, or at least is PM, but if not, this has been his to lose, not Miliband's to win. And it will be a shocking failure if the latter is the outcome.