- Advertisement -
Home Blog

US politics isn’t broken. It’s fixed | Katherine M. Gehl

0
caption


Transcriber: Everything I need to know about politics, I learned from cheese. For the last decade of my business career, I ran a 250-million-dollar food company in Wisconsin. And yes, we made cheese. If customers liked my cheese, I did well. If they didn’t, they bought cheese from someone else and I did less well.

That’s healthy competition. Healthy competition incentivizes businesses to make better products. Better products equals happier customers and happier customers equals successful businesses. Win-win. Now, while I was running Gehl Foods, I was also deeply engaged in and increasingly frustrated by politics.

The more frustrated I got, the more I wondered why competition in politics didn’t deliver the same kind of win-win results. How did the Democrats and the Republicans keep doing so well when their customers, that’s us, are so unhappy? Why is the politics industry win-lose? They win.

We lose.

The answer? It turns out that one thing almost all Americans agree on, “Washington is broken,” is also one thing we’re all wrong about. Washington isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what it’s designed to do. It’s just not designed to serve us, the citizens, the public interest. Most of the rules in politics are designed and continuously fine-tuned by and for the benefit of private gain-seeking organizations.

That’s the two parties, a textbook duopoly, and the surrounding companies in the business of politics. And they’re all doing great. Even as the American public has never been more dissatisfied. Said another way, politics isn’t broken, it’s fixed. This is a guiding principle of politics industry theory, the nonpartisan body of work that I originated and have championed over the last seven years.

Now, before I go further, I should tell you I’m not on the red team or the blue team. I call myself politically homeless, which may resonate with some of you. And my work doesn’t focus blame on individual politicians on either side of the duopoly.

The root cause of our political dysfunction, the cause that endures across all election cycles and all administrations is the system, the perverted rules of the game, the rules of the game in politics even make prisoners of our senators and representatives. Their only option is lockstep allegiance to their side of the divide.

So what do we do about it? How do we free our Congress and make politics win-win? We change the rules. But which ones? It’s not what we think.

It’s not gerrymandering, not the Electoral College, not the absence of term limits and not even money in politics, really. By looking at the system through a competition lens, politics industry theory identifies the two rules that are both our greatest obstacles and our greatest opportunities. They’ve been hiding in plain sight. Let’s start with bad rule number one: party primaries. You all know primaries, those first round elections that we mostly ignore, the ones that identify the single Republican and the single Democrat who can appear on the November general election ballot.

Party primaries have become low turnout elections dominated by highly ideological voters and special interests. Candidates know that the only way to make it to the general election ballot in November is to win the favor of these more extreme partisans in the primary. So candidates from both parties have little choice but to move towards those extremes. Why does this matter? Because it dramatically affects governing, and not in a good way.

Imagine you’re a member of Congress.

You’re deciding how to vote on a bipartisan bill that addresses a critical national challenge. You might ask yourself, is this a good idea? Is this what the majority of my constituents want? But that’s not how it works in the politics industry.

Instead, the question that matters most to you is, will I win my next party primary if I vote for this bill? The answer is almost always no. Consensus solutions don’t win party primaries. Let’s illustrate this key design flaw with a Venn diagram. In the current system, there’s virtually no intersection, no connection between Congress acting in the public interest and the likelihood of their getting reelected.

If America’s elected representatives do their jobs the way we need them to, they’re likely to lose those jobs. That is crazy. No wonder Congress doesn’t get anything done. OK, now let’s talk about bad rule number two: plurality voting, which I’ll explain in just a moment.

In any other industry as big and as thriving as politics with this much customer dissatisfaction and only two companies, some entrepreneur would see a phenomenal business opportunity and create a new competitor.

But that doesn’t happen in politics. Our current parties don’t feel competitive pressure to serve the public interest, in large part because of one rule that keeps out almost all new competition: plurality voting. It sounds fancy, but it simply means the candidate with the most votes wins. That also seems logical, but it’s a really bad idea. Why?

Because in the United States you can win almost any election, even if a majority didn’t vote for you. For example, in this three-way race, the winner only has 34 percent of the votes. Sixty-six percent of the voters, most people, wanted someone else. With plurality voting, we may not feel free to vote for the candidate we really want because we’re afraid that we’ll just waste our vote, or worse, will spoil the election. So if you think back to the 2016 presidential race, voters on the right who liked Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, were told by the Republicans, “Don’t vote for him!

He’s just a spoiler.

He’ll take votes away from Trump and help elect Hillary.” And voters on the left who liked Green Party candidate Jill Stein were told by the Democrats, “Don’t vote for her. She’s just a spoiler. She’ll take votes away from Hillary and help elect Trump.

” The spoiler problem that comes from plurality voting is the single biggest reason almost nobody new outside the duopoly ever runs or gets any traction because everyone knows they don’t stand a chance. Politics is the only industry where we’re regularly told that less competition is better. And if there’s never any new competition, the existing parties aren’t accountable to us for results because they don’t need us to like what they’re doing.

They only need us to choose one of them as the lesser of two evils or to just stay home. The founders foresaw our situation and they warned us.

As when John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with parties or even having only two major parties. The problem is the current two are guaranteed to remain the only two, regardless of what they do or don’t get done on behalf of the country. Does this sound like the best we can do? Of course not.

So the founders gave us what they knew we’d need. They gave us this, our Constitution. There’s a reason it’s called the pocket Constitution: it’s short. Guess what’s not in here — instructions on how to run our elections. Crazy rules like party primaries and plurality voting, they’re made up.

But thanks to what is in here, Article I, they’re optional.

Article I gives every state the power to change the rules of election for Congress at any time. Personally, I think it now sounds like the perfect time. And here’s where we turn nonpartisan politics industry theory into action. The political innovation we need is what I call final-five voting.

With final-five voting, we make two simple changes to our elections for Congress. We get rid of what doesn’t work, party primaries and plurality voting, and replace it with what will work: open top-five primaries and instant runoffs in the general election. Let me explain these changes with an example of final-five voting in a hypothetical and kind of cool election. So here we have eight candidates from four different political parties: Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Abigail Adams, all the way through to Aaron Burr, ambitious as ever.

Immediately you notice how diverse this field is.

It’s a primary people would want to vote in because it’s exciting. It has experience and vision, but it’s also young, scrappy and hungry. OK, maybe not so young. And because this is an open primary, all eight candidates are on the same ballot, regardless of party. When the results are in, the top five finishers move on to the November election, again, regardless of party.

In the general election, voters pick their favorite, just like always. But then, if they would like, they can also rank their second, third, fourth and last choices. You may have heard of this idea as ranked-choice voting. Here’s where things get interesting. If this election were a plurality vote like normal, Aaron Burr would win because he has the most first-place votes.

Thirty percent. But because this is final-five voting, the winner will be the candidate who’s most popular with the majority, not just with a narrow slice of voters. So we use instant runoffs. We drop the candidate who came in last and those who had marked that candidate as their first choice get their second choice counted instead. The process continues until a candidate emerges with a majority.

It’s just like a series of runoffs. But instead of having to keep coming back for another election, voters simply cast all their votes at once. And after those results are in, Alexander Hamilton wins with 68 percent of the vote. Final-five voting is the name for this combination of top-five primaries and instant runoff general elections. We must change both rules at the same time because it’s how they work in combination that transforms the incentives in politics.

The ultimate purpose of final-five voting is not necessarily to change who wins, it’s to change what the winners are incentivized to do.

Under this system, the message to Congress is “do your job or lose your job,” innovate, reach across the aisle whenever it’s helpful, and come up with real solutions to our problems and create new opportunities for progress or be guaranteed new and healthy competition in the next election. Final-five voting gives voters more choice, more voice and most importantly, better results. I like to call it free-market politics because it will deliver the best of what healthy competition delivers in any industry: innovation, results and accountability.

Now, before you think that I’m just making a naive overpromise of some crazy, unattainable utopia, I want to clarify that I’m not.

I agree with Winston Churchill when he said, “Democracy is the worst form of government out there, except when compared to all the others.” Democracy is messy and hard, and what we have now is messy, hard and bad results, really bad results. With final-five voting we’ll have messy, hard and good results to show for it. And perhaps the most amazing part of all of this, final-five voting is powerful and achievable. We now have proof.

In 2017, I published my early work on politics industry theory through Harvard Business School with my coauthor Michael Porter. The report made its way to Alaska where Scott Kendall read it, and then he took action. Scott used the work to design a ballot initiative, including these new rules. Just last month, November 2020, Alaska voters passed this initiative, and Alaska became the first state in the nation to choose healthy competition in elections for Congress. They won’t be the last.

It’s devastating to really face how little we’ve come to expect from our politics.

We think this is normal. We complain about it, but we’ve almost given up believing that it could ever be different. But this is no way to run the shining city on a hill that is America. We can choose different.

Our Constitution gives us that power and, I believe, the responsibility to remake our politics when we need to — and we need to. With the greatest urgency and without fatigue, we must aggressively reclaim the enormous promise of the great American experiment, of our American politics, our politics. Not red politics. Not blue politics, ours. Thank you.

.

As found on YouTube

As Biden faces political challenges, Trump signals increased interest in 2024 rematch

0
caption


>>> ALLIES OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE’S SHOWING GROWING INTEREST IN A REMATCH AGAINST PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. ACCORDING TO POLITICO PRESIDENT BIDEN’S INCLINING POLITICAL FORTUNES AMID THE RESURGENE OF CORONAVIRUS AND THE FALL OF KABUL HAVE INTENSIFIED THE INTEREST OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT , ADDING THAT HE IS ALREADY MOTIVATED BY A BURNING SENSE OF PRIDE AND GRIEVANCE OVER HIS LOSS. YOU INTERVIEWED SOME OF THE FORMER PRESIDENTS CLOSES ALLIES. WHAT DO THEY THINK WILL BE THE DETERMINING FACTORS FOR A POSSIBLE TRUMP 20 24-BIT? >> MONTHS AGO A LOT OF HIS ALLIES AND ADVISERS SAID THEY WERE NOT SO SURE THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE EAGER TO JUMP INTO THE 2024 RACE.

AFTER ALL, HE WAS STILL DEALING WITH THE FALLOUT OF EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6th. HE WAS GETTING INTO A ROUTINE IN FLORIDA AND HAVE BEEN ENJOYING THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS AND ACTING LIKE A POLITICAL KINGMAKER. NOW THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT HAS SEEN PRESIDENTIAL BIDEN’S POLL NUMBERS START TO FALL, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW HE DEALT WITH THE WITHDRAWAL IN AFGHANISTAN AND OF COURSE THE FOURTH WAVE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC, HE IS SEEING WHAT THEY SAY IS BLOOD IN THE WATER.

THEY THINK THE FORMER PRESIDENT COULD JUMP IN THAT HE IS SERIOUS AND TALKING ABOUT IT. BEYOND THAT, HIS TEAM IS ALREADY BUILDING THINGS OUT.

HE HAS TWO SEASONED LYRICAL OPERATIVES ON THE GROUND IN IOWA . HIS TEAM SAYS THEY ARE PUSHING FORWARD THEIR SAVE AMERICA AGENDA. AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING AN EYE ON SOME 2024 HOPEFULS COMING THROUGH. OF COURSE TRUMP HAS PLANS TO DO MORE POLITICAL RALLIES IN PLACES LIKE IOWA AND GEORGIA. THERE COULD ALSO BE ONE IN THE WORKS FOR FLORIDA.

HE’S MAKING BIG POLITICAL MOVES THAT SIGNAL HE IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT 2024 RIGHT NOW. >> IN THE NEAR TERM POLICY SPENDING THE 20th ANNIVERSARY OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS? >> THIS SATURDAY THE FORMER PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING A LITTLE UNUSUAL. IT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED HE IS GOING TO BE A GUEST COMMENTATOR ALONG WITH HIS SON AT A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING MATCH ON SATURDAY EVENING IN FLORIDA. MEANWHILE, WE’VE ALREADY HEARD THAT PRESIDENT BUSH IS GOING TO BE IN SHANKSVILLE, FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOING TO BE IN NEW YORK CITY.

AND THEN OF COURSE PRESIDENT BIDEN WILL BE VISITING ALL THE SITES AND COMMEMORATING THAT DAY. I DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE THE FORMER PRESIDENT HAS PLANNED. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU MIGHT BE MAKING ANY SORT OF STOPS TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. CERTAINLY BEING A GUEST COMMENTATOR AND A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING MATCH ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SEEING IT AS FLIPPANT.

>> THE FORMER PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BE A PROLIFIC FUNDRAISER. ANOTHER CAMPAIGN LIKE ACTIVITY ARE WE SEEING FROM THE TRUMP TEAM? >> HE HAS THESE TWO RALLIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING UP. HE CONTINUES TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES WITH FUNDRAISING. MY COLLEAGUES REPORTED TODAY THAT IT IS EXPECTED THAT HE WILL THROW SUPPORT BEHIND A WOMAN IN WYOMING WHO IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE RUNNING AGAINST LIZ CHENEY, WHO HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST OUTSPOKEN CRITICS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND PARTICULARLY HIS BEHAVIOR ON JANUARY 6th.

SHE WAS ONE OF THIS AN XMEN WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF HIS IMPEACHMENTS. SHE HAS BEEN ONE OF HIS MOST OUTSPOKEN CRITICS ON THE RIGHT. TRUMP IS VERY EASY — EAGER TO THROW HIS WEIGHT AROUND IN THAT RACE. HIS TEAM IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO PUSH ALONG A CANDIDATE THAT THEY THINK COULD BEAT CHENEY IN THE WYOMING PRIMARY.

>> ALL RIGHT, MEANTIME THE BIG.

As found on YouTube

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on child tax credit, abortion

0
caption


JOHN YANG: It’s been a day of leisure for most Americans,  but not our Politics Monday duo, Amy Walter, editor in chief of The Cook Political Report,  and NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith. We just heard Yamiche Alcindor talk about the SNAP benefits expanding and the child tax credit. Tam, how important is this to the Democrats’ agenda and President Biden’s agenda? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: This is absolutely core to President Biden’s agenda. It is part of the $3.

5 trillion bill that they are going to start working on in earnest  again now that Congress is returning. Expanding this child tax credit is  important to Democrats because it can really take a huge bite out of child poverty.

And it has been a longtime agenda item, one that they were able to get into the COVID relief bill,  and one that they are hoping to be able to have long term. But we can talk about infrastructure  for a long time. We will talk about it many times.

 It is not clear yet that that is on a glide path. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Right, because that’s the $3.5 trillion package, which  at least two Democratic senators have said, yes, it is not going to be $3.5 trillion.  It’s going to be a much lower number.

So what is the going to get cut from all those different  priorities that Democrats, that the Biden administration,  that House Democrats would like to see put forward is going to be a big question. And the child tax credit is something that, even in that big reconciliation bill,  because it is a reconciliation bill, it can’t be made permanent.  This is something that will last for a good, long time, but then will have to be readdressed.

Now, look, in politics, in governing, oftentimes,  these bills are used as a way to actually make the short term the long term, right?  It becomes so popular that, 10 years from now, it becomes really unpopular to take something back.

JOHN YANG: We’re at a time when a lot of things that were put in because of the pandemic are  ending, the eviction moratorium and the federal unemployment benefits. Tam, is there any debate in the White House about what to do about these things that are ending? TAMARA KEITH: So those expanded benefits ended today, and the White House’s message, at least,  has been that the benefits are ending, but if states wanted to extend them,  they could.

There is money that they could pull out of unused other relief funds. But you haven’t seen states running to the doors to keep this program going,  and, in part, because the White House has turned its eyes to this $3.

5 trillion infrastructure  package, the other smaller structure package. They have a big agenda. And this,  the eviction moratorium, those items aren’t really on that agenda. It would take a huge legislative lift to get either of those extended beyond. And so, also,  it just points to the fact that the pandemic is not where anyone thought it would be right now.

  When that unemployment extension was passed,  it was off in a distant future when everyone would be vaccinated and the pandemic would be over. And the Delta variant said, eh, not so fast. JOHN YANG: Does this become a political challenge for the president and for Democrats? AMY WALTER: Part of this discussion we just had about the increase in the SNAP payments  and the child tax credit is an opportunity to say, look, we’re not letting the safety net  completely dissolve underneath families who are struggling in this moment in time. At the same time, the more that they hand out benefits, it’s not just, as Tam pointed out,  that it’s taking away from the other agenda items.

But it’s also then acknowledging that the  economy is not coming back. And what they want to show, the Biden administration wants to show is,  we have continued to make progress on the economy. Yes, it’s uneven. Yes, this Delta  variant is taking a toll, but not a deep toll. It is we are coming out on the other side.

And so it’s hard to say, be optimistic about the economy when you’re also saying we need  to spend even more money helping people who still can’t get jobs.

Fundamentally, this is a once-in-a-100-year event. And policy-makers don’t have any road  map for how to solve this, right? So I think they are trying to do as many things as possible, while  recognizing the realities, both of the message they want to get along — they want to send along,  the agenda they want to put forward, and having a 50/50 Senate, where at least two Democratic  senators have been really clear about their own priorities at limiting some of the spending. JOHN YANG: We have to go back to last week because of the abortion bill.

.. AMY WALTER: Right. JOHN YANG: ..

. that took — became law in Texas. They have essentially  ended abortion in the state for the time being. Tam, what does this do? Does this change any of the calculus  about the midterms next year or any of the elections that are coming up?

TAMARA KEITH: Traditionally, abortion has been an  issue that has motivated Republicans more than it has motivated Democrats.

But the last several years have been defeat after defeat after defeat for the Democratic agenda  and for something that Democrats really prioritize, which is reproductive rights. And I don’t know if, in the midterms, it’s going to change, that sort of dynamic  about which party cares more about abortion, but I can tell you that,  right now, Democrats are angry and they’re motivated. AMY WALTER: Right. And we are potentially going to see some early indicators of how motivating this could be.

  As you pointed out, we have a couple of elections. We have got the recall  in California of the Democratic governor. He’s now leaning into this issue,  saying Texas is an example of why it’s so important who your governor is.

The leading Republican candidate, he argues, is going to install  Judges and others who are going to rollback reproductive rights in the state,  not something that Californians are used to hearing about. But in Virginia, there’s a governors race in November.

Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat,  had already been stressing this message before the Texas case. I expect that he will continue  to do this. So these are the kinds of places where we’re going to get a sense.  There will be a whole bunch of other issues out there, but at least get a sense. One Democratic strategist I talked to said,  where it’s really going to — the rubber really hit the road is next summer,  if the Supreme Court comes out and overturns Roe in the court case from Mississippi.

That,  this person said, would probably bring Democrats out into the streets in droves. JOHN YANG: Just months before the midterms. AMY WALTER: Just months before a 2022 midterm, yes. JOHN YANG: Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, thank you very much. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome.

AMY WALTER: You’re welcome. .

As found on YouTube

China To End Lockdown Of Most Of Coronavirus-Hit Hubei Province

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

French court releases Malian singer Traore, but backs extradition in custody case

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

Spain overtakes China’s coronavirus toll with 3,434 deaths

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

France to support start-ups with €4 billion plan amid coronavirus crisis

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

Top French hospital executive says coronavirus toll higher than official tally

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

Trapped at home: Domestic violence victims at high risk in coronavirus confinement

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.

How does the coronavirus compare to the Spanish flu?

0

A supermarket worker was spat at by a customer attempting to stockpile Pot Noodles while another was told: “I hope you get the virus and die”, as panic-buying blighted the nations response to coronavirus pandemic.

An eyewitness described the scene at a packed branch of Asda in the Wirral, Merseyside, on Saturday, as a man in his 30s attempted to buy more than the three Pot Noodles allowed by the store.

Everyone was so wrapped up in making sure everybody

A woman in her 40s working behind the checkout attempted to enforce the rules, brought in to ensure stocks could be maintained, and the gentleman objected to it and spat at her, according to businessman Andy Smith, who was in the store.

The incident, which was raised in parliament by Labour MP Bill Esterson, was just one of the horrendous cases of abuse revealed by supermarket workers in recent days as some customers grow angry over restrictions and empty shelves.

The doctor was exposed to the virus when the 38-year-old woman visited the clinic on March 12, the minister said. Five days later, she tested positive. That day, the doctor was also admitted in hospital.