Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports are preferable to lockdown, no? In fact, they are the best way of avoiding lockdown. The unvaxxed have stay home or get a test. That’s not great but it’s better than closing down all of human society, again
The fact someone intelligent like you can’t see this is depressing. The purity is insane
Morocco has just banned flights from the UK. We’re going to be plague island once more
Plan B of mask wearing and ban on indoor gatherings must be enforced immediately, warns NHS leader NHS Confederation chief said Covid restrictions including a return to working from home need to return or UK at risk of 'winter crisis'
please insert "not" before "value" in my post above.
A "ban on indoor gatherings". What the hell does this even mean? No socialising? Closure of restaurants, cafes, pubs, cinemas, theatres? Closure of shops?
Just no.
Some people just love to suck the joy out of life.
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports are preferable to lockdown, no? In fact, they are the best way of avoiding lockdown. The unvaxxed have stay home or get a test. That’s not great but it’s better than closing down all of human society, again
The fact someone intelligent like you can’t see this is depressing. The purity is insane
Morocco has just banned flights from the UK. We’re going to be plague island once more
There's nothing wrong with being plague island.
We have enough herd immunity already to prevent exponential growth and the NHS collapsing. Now we need to fill in the gaps so that anyone unvaccinated becomes vaccinated via a more "natural" route as they've chosen to take.
The sooner they get it the better. No locking down to save antivaxxers.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Certainly a contender. Plus all scenes involving the little boy, and Bill Nighy. But basically all of it, although I guess Hugh Grant is good in his scenes, because he is Hugh Grant and is always good.
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
My favoured solution is Northern Irish Independence.
On @MaxPB 's earlier comments re: benefits and entitlement: the focus should be on the high rate of working poverty in the UK, rather than for those out of work, particular when compared with Scandinavian countries.
The solution, mooted often here, is going to be a big reform to the earnings taper rate on UC and the marginal rate of tax. It's tricky though - UC serves to subsidise employers at the mo, and reducing the taper will not help. There is also the underlying problem of low productivity.
On the NHS: this is a classic moral hazard problem. The optics of punishing those overweight (over 60% of us!) doesn't work. How easy would it be to provide a £100 per annum tax refund to those with BMI <25?
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
adj - (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.
It's definitely the EU referring to itself and the conventions of its genre.
I know the meaning of the word. I was joking after Facebook's "Metaverse" name announcement.
I was going to post 'it could only happen in the new metaverse', but then I looked up what the metaverse was supposed to be. I got bored of it pretty quickly!
Am I the only one who on hearing the announcement -
- Wondered if Facebook is try to buy an old American aircraft carrier - Wondered if the Mafia are moving into pizza delivery. - Wondered if starting to practise kendo with a piece of rebar is a good idea
Mr. Leon, if you believe they'd be temporary, I'd agree.
I think there's sod all chance of them being temporary.
Although it's always nice to be considered intelligent.
Also worth remembering we've seen a lot of ups and downs. Today's 'good' country suffers more tomorrow.
But if offered the choice now, between hard lockdown or vaxports, what do you choose? Vaxports of course. Lockdown is a much greater imposition on our freedoms and happiness.
Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports are preferable to lockdown, no? In fact, they are the best way of avoiding lockdown. The unvaxxed have stay home or get a test. That’s not great but it’s better than closing down all of human society, again
The fact someone intelligent like you can’t see this is depressing. The purity is insane
Morocco has just banned flights from the UK. We’re going to be plague island once more
I would personally choose masks and lockdowns over ID cards and the biosurveillance state.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
It was the EU who insisted on a border in the Irish Sea for any GB trade deal.
Lord Frost has however managed to get the EU to back down a little on that in the last week and promise minimal checks.
Boris will also impose direct rule on NI however if the EU do not go further and remove it completely as if they do not then Unionist parties will withdraw from the Stormont executive
It was their only true red line - integrity of the Single Market. Hardly a sneaky or unreasonable demand. As we ourselves acknowledged. We wouldn't have signed up to a sneaky or unreasonable demand, would we? No way. Not our guys.
Is the integrity of the market more important to them than peace in Northern Ireland?
If so, that's their choice they're free to make. They 2should build a border between NI and Eire and enforce it themselves. Good luck to them!
If they're not prepared to do that, they're bluffing and need another solution.
Peace in NI isn't a chip in Brexit negotiations. I'd hope Johnson & Frost realize this even if you don't. I expect they do and I imagine the EU do too. The issue will imo be sorted on the basis of the recent proposal. Checks but no checks. The ECJ stays, I think, but maybe this can be finessed in some way. It's there but it's not there. Constructive ambiguity, like the GFA, like the Protocol, like everything to do with NI - Irish and British, border, no border, in the SM, in the UK so not in the SM, all true at the same time, so long as it is positioned to catch the light in a certain way. Main thing - peace. It relies on people being pragmatic and at the same time high-minded. It relies on people NOT being literal, reductive, combative, sectarian.
Well said, we can agree with each other occasionally
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
My favoured solution is Northern Irish Independence.
Leaves the UK and doesn't join the Republic.
Too sensible.
I like my sensible solution to the Palestine thing - build more land.
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
But if the choice is forced on you. As it might be. Which?
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
My favoured solution is Northern Irish Independence.
Leaves the UK and doesn't join the Republic.
How about an auction? Metaverse might fancy buying their first country on the march to global domination?
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
By the way - apologies to all. I'm really cranky today, triggered by the massively delayed rollout of teen and booster jabs and the outcome of all the pressure from the antivaxxer loons and the way they were amplified by the denialists like Toby Young.
Should probably step away from the computer for a while.
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
My favoured solution is Northern Irish Independence.
Leaves the UK and doesn't join the Republic.
How about an auction? Metaverse might fancy buying their first country on the march to global domination?
Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports are preferable to lockdown, no? In fact, they are the best way of avoiding lockdown. The unvaxxed have stay home or get a test. That’s not great but it’s better than closing down all of human society, again
The fact someone intelligent like you can’t see this is depressing. The purity is insane
Morocco has just banned flights from the UK. We’re going to be plague island once more
I would personally choose masks and lockdowns over ID cards and the biosurveillance state.
You’d rather we’re all locked at home going mad, as last winter, crippling the economy - again - as against having to show a QR code for 3 seconds at a doorway?
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
I reckon some deaths are with COVID, but the more interesting question is, how much life is being lost? We're all going to die at some point, but clearly COVID was taking years off some unlucky people's lives. It'd be interesting to know the average age of COVID deaths where the deceased was double vaccinated.
Mr. Leon, if you believe they'd be temporary, I'd agree.
I think there's sod all chance of them being temporary.
Although it's always nice to be considered intelligent.
Also worth remembering we've seen a lot of ups and downs. Today's 'good' country suffers more tomorrow.
But if offered the choice now, between hard lockdown or vaxports, what do you choose? Vaxports of course. Lockdown is a much greater imposition on our freedoms and happiness.
Idiots that oppose them on principle are idiots
I'm not so sure. Lockdowns are such a huge measure that no one wants them to be permanent. My concern about vaccine passports is that they will drag on and become ever more comprehensive.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Personally I would go for any and every scene that had Martine McCutcheon in it.
Good call. There is quality in the film and that is the Emma Thompson story and character. Woman realizes her husband of many many years is cheating, which makes her feel sad and foolish and as if her life has been a joke. It's realistic and poignant, and seems to belong in a different movie.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
adj - (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.
It's definitely the EU referring to itself and the conventions of its genre.
Not come across that definition of meta before. Use it in relation to meta models, and meta level learning, or even meta language. But not seen it before in relation to art and creative works.
Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
I doubt if there would be much public support for a renewed lockdown, on current numbers. To get to the position we were in at the start of the year, in terms of deaths and hospitalisations, case numbers would have to be hitting 220,000 a day. Covid passports would be a lot more popular, I think.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
Does signed up mean sticking to for you here then?
The UK is sticking to the NI Protocol.
Article 16 is a valid part of the NI Protocol and as we've already established its conditions as written are quite clearly met.
Lol. Your contortions sometimes. Simone Biles eat your heart out.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
Does signed up mean sticking to for you here then?
The UK is sticking to the NI Protocol.
Article 16 is a valid part of the NI Protocol and as we've already established its conditions as written are quite clearly met.
Lol. Your contortions sometimes. Simone Biles eat your heart out.
Mr. Leon, if you believe they'd be temporary, I'd agree.
I think there's sod all chance of them being temporary.
Although it's always nice to be considered intelligent.
Also worth remembering we've seen a lot of ups and downs. Today's 'good' country suffers more tomorrow.
But if offered the choice now, between hard lockdown or vaxports, what do you choose? Vaxports of course. Lockdown is a much greater imposition on our freedoms and happiness.
Idiots that oppose them on principle are idiots
I'm not so sure. Lockdowns are such a huge measure that no one wants them to be permanent. My concern about vaccine passports is that they will drag on and become ever more comprehensive.
Right. ‘Let’s go for a measure so draconian it sends people mad and cripples the economy, because it is so destructive it is unlikely to be prolonged, rather than doing something much less imposing, which will actually encourage to people to get vaccinated, and allow us to exit Covid quicker.’
On @MaxPB 's earlier comments re: benefits and entitlement: the focus should be on the high rate of working poverty in the UK, rather than for those out of work, particular when compared with Scandinavian countries.
The solution, mooted often here, is going to be a big reform to the earnings taper rate on UC and the marginal rate of tax. It's tricky though - UC serves to subsidise employers at the mo, and reducing the taper will not help. There is also the underlying problem of low productivity.
On the NHS: this is a classic moral hazard problem. The optics of punishing those overweight (over 60% of us!) doesn't work. How easy would it be to provide a £100 per annum tax refund to those with BMI 25?
That is indeed the problem with the UK system. It encourages bad behaviour - not by the low paid or unemployed but by business. Pay workers less than a living wage and expect the Government to make up the difference.
In Norway the minimum wage is around £17 an hour for cleaning staff.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
Basingstoke, however, did briefly have a DUP MP. (A Tory defector).
Had to Google that. A fascinating case. Also led onto reading about the Monday Club. I wonder if HYUFD is a member...
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
Happy wife, happy life. That's my reason for watching Love Actually.
Like David, I'll get around to The Wire one day.
Sounds like you and me are in the same boat here, Philip. LA, yes, Wire, no. Interesting. Perhaps there really is "more that unites".
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
I would personally go for WFH, some mask wearing and social distancing to try and reduce the spread. These things can all be easily adopted with negligible economic and social cost. Some people will carry on going to restaurants, bars etc and that is their choice; but the above measures would reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
Whilst I agree with you, I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that vaccines have changed the game. Sure, deaths due to COVID among the vaccinated will be knocking off life, but it will be nowhere near the same as when we weren't vaccinated.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
Would that not also apply to perception of antivaxxers?
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Personally I would go for any and every scene that had Martine McCutcheon in it.
Good call. There is quality in the film and that is the Emma Thompson story and character. Woman realizes her husband of many many years is cheating, which makes her feel sad and foolish and as if her life has been a joke. It's realistic and poignant, and seems to belong in a different movie.
The film is just a series of male fantasies strung together.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
Basingstoke, however, did briefly have a DUP MP. (A Tory defector).
Had to Google that. A fascinating case. Also led onto reading about the Monday Club. I wonder if HYUFD is a member...
John Bercow was, of course, once a Monday Club member. And back in the day Wetherspoons had meal offer (get two for the price of one or whatever) which they called 'the Monday Club'. (I thought that a little problematic at the time.)
Regardless of how you view them otherwise, if you had to choose one British Prime Minister from the last forty years to have handled the Covid-19 outbreak, who would it have been?
Blair leads among Labour voters (29%) but by nothing like Thatcher among Conservative voters (54%). Thatcher leads across all regions - including London & Scotland and among all ages 25+ - though in a statistical tie with Blair in 18-24 who mainly "don't know" (47).
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
Brexit points to a united ireland being an almost certainty, in time.
An independent Scotland is 50/50, I’d judge.
The Tories still don’t appreciate the implications of what they have done.
In 2014 before Brexit Scotland voted 55% No to independence, 45% Yes. At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote 55% of Scots did not vote SNP.
In 2019 in NI after the Brexit vote and Boris' deal 43% of voters voted for Unionist parties and only 38% for Nationalist.
So wrong, it made near zero difference
You could have saved yourself some typing and simply conceded my last sentence, which most readers will see is what you have done….
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
It isn't a place. It is a supranational body comprising 27 sovereign nations. Even if it were a place, I am not sure "it" is less happy than a country that chose to leave it by a few percentage points and where the population now thinks by majority that the decision was a mistake; a country where we crowed about how Brexit made us better at delivering vaccines and now we are behind; a country that will continue to have shortages and problems with supply chains that the continentals will laugh at us about. Yep, that happy "place".
Regardless of how you view them otherwise, if you had to choose one British Prime Minister from the last forty years to have handled the Covid-19 outbreak, who would it have been?
Blair leads among Labour voters (29%) but by nothing like Thatcher among Conservative voters (54%). Thatcher leads across all regions - including London & Scotland and among all ages 25+ - though in a statistical tie with Blair in 18-24 who mainly "don't know" (47).
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Personally I would go for any and every scene that had Martine McCutcheon in it.
Good call. There is quality in the film and that is the Emma Thompson story and character. Woman realizes her husband of many many years is cheating, which makes her feel sad and foolish and as if her life has been a joke. It's realistic and poignant, and seems to belong in a different movie.
The film is just a series of male fantasies strung together.
A minor apostrophe alert, but mainly to point out that the actual choice, had we but known what this was going to be about, was between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Piers Corbyn's brother. Cometh the hour......
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
It was the EU who insisted on a border in the Irish Sea for any GB trade deal.
Lord Frost has however managed to get the EU to back down a little on that in the last week and promise minimal checks.
Boris will also impose direct rule on NI however if the EU do not go further and remove it completely as if they do not then Unionist parties will withdraw from the Stormont executive
It was their only true red line - integrity of the Single Market. Hardly a sneaky or unreasonable demand. As we ourselves acknowledged. We wouldn't have signed up to a sneaky or unreasonable demand, would we? No way. Not our guys.
Is the integrity of the market more important to them than peace in Northern Ireland?
If so, that's their choice they're free to make. They 2should build a border between NI and Eire and enforce it themselves. Good luck to them!
If they're not prepared to do that, they're bluffing and need another solution.
Peace in NI isn't a chip in Brexit negotiations. I'd hope Johnson & Frost realize this even if you don't. I expect they do and I imagine the EU do too. The issue will imo be sorted on the basis of the recent proposal. Checks but no checks. The ECJ stays, I think, but maybe this can be finessed in some way. It's there but it's not there. Constructive ambiguity, like the GFA, like the Protocol, like everything to do with NI - Irish and British, border, no border, in the SM, in the UK so not in the SM, all true at the same time, so long as it is positioned to catch the light in a certain way. Main thing - peace. It relies on people being pragmatic and at the same time high-minded. It relies on people NOT being literal, reductive, combative, sectarian.
Well said, we can agree with each other occasionally
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
Basingstoke, however, did briefly have a DUP MP. (A Tory defector).
Had to Google that. A fascinating case. Also led onto reading about the Monday Club. I wonder if HYUFD is a member...
John Bercow was, of course, once a Monday Club member. And back in the day Wetherspoons had meal offer (get two for the price of one or whatever) which they called 'the Monday Club'. (I thought that a little problematic at the time.)
He was even secretary of the Immigration and Repatriation Committee.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
Whilst I agree with you, I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that vaccines have changed the game. Sure, deaths due to COVID among the vaccinated will be knocking off life, but it will be nowhere near the same as when we weren't vaccinated.
Oh, absolutely. We'd be in a very different place without them.
We're looking at covid being maybe 2-3 times as deadly as influenza for all ages for those vaccinated (versus 20-30x for the unvaccinated). It still causes a significant problem because when it's rampant, it would also end up infecting the majority of the population and doing so in a few months (vice about a quarter to a third for an influenza outbreak).
So, with the vaxxed, we're looking at a situation about 5-10x as bad as a bad seasonal influenza outbreak. Which can cause considerable damage and unacceptable pressure on hospitals - but in comparison to last year, it's not even in the same league, let alone division.
Add to that the data from the booster shots looking like they reduce danger/deadliness by over a further factor of ten, and when the booster rollout is done, we're done.
As it stands, thanks to the vaccines, we actually only need to reduce R by about 20% to hit stability until the booster rollout is done. Could have been done by vaxxing all the teens (and should have been done by now).
Or maybe masking and encouraging WFH until the booster programme is out might be enough. Certainly no need for a hard lockdown, in my considered opinion.
Absolute worst-case I can see would be a 4-5 week return to Step 3 of the roadmap, but I suspect the masks/WFH would probably do the trick. It'll take us 4-5 weeks to see the benefit of a much accelerated teen jabs/booster jabs programme, so that should see us emerge from it.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
So overall we're running at around 1,200 extra deaths a week. Non-COVID excess deaths is around 500 a week.
Excess death stats are good, but they're a bit hazy anyway as the random variation in a single week must be significant when compared to a 5 year average of that particular week.
One thing with no restrictions (hopefully) this winter, deaths from other viruses which were crushed by lockdown (Mainly flu) should return to their normal levels. Though again flu can be very random. Excess deaths is a good metric, but not for cherry picking any particular week I think.
Regardless of how you view them otherwise, if you had to choose one British Prime Minister from the last forty years to have handled the Covid-19 outbreak, who would it have been?
Blair leads among Labour voters (29%) but by nothing like Thatcher among Conservative voters (54%). Thatcher leads across all regions - including London & Scotland and among all ages 25+ - though in a statistical tie with Blair in 18-24 who mainly "don't know" (47).
I’m at Luton Airport, en route to Alentejo for Dildo Knappers’ Gazette.
It is noticeable how much warier EU-types are. They all wear masks. They presume they have to queue at bars to get a seat. They wait, patiently
The ague-ridden Brits swan about. Hmm
Yes I've been in Andalusia for the last week. You have to wear masks in shops and on public transport (well-respected) and in bars and restaurants except when seated (slightly less well respected). However 50% of Spaniards seem to be wearing them all the time, even outdoors, and often restaurants and bars are empty with everyone on the patio (although that might be the time of year, it is actually cool enough to sit outside at the moment).
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
Regardless of how you view them otherwise, if you had to choose one British Prime Minister from the last forty years to have handled the Covid-19 outbreak, who would it have been?
Blair leads among Labour voters (29%) but by nothing like Thatcher among Conservative voters (54%). Thatcher leads across all regions - including London & Scotland and among all ages 25+ - though in a statistical tie with Blair in 18-24 who mainly "don't know" (47).
Blair or Thatcher would be my choices. Wouldn't mind which.
I think Thatcher for this - (and only this, the rest is 40 years out of date) - HIV/AIDS showed she wasn't afraid of making unpopular choices and wasn't much fussed who she upset - Blair is a superlative communicator but I fear wants to be liked a little too much (though nothing like as much as the current incumbent).
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
Would that not also apply to perception of antivaxxers?
Yes, thus the overlap between them (albeit there are quite a few who don't ascribe to the antivaxxer lunacy but point correctly to the vaccines being the way out). I don't know if I mentioned it here, but I've got my own hypothesis about antivaxxing: a big component is that it's an injection.
Not only is there the "Ow, I don't like needles" impulse (and we've all got that deep down; it's very easy to rationalise something around it), but the perception that something injected is a far larger and more significant medical thing than something inhaled, which is more significant than a pill to be taken. Despite the fact that pills can really be just as bad, if not worse.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
First 'traitor' of the day. Will it be the last?!
Ooh. Can I be added to the list. Nothing to celebrate about the creation of a nasty little statelet which proceeded to oppress its Catholic citizens.
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
My personal favourite solution is the removal of the entire NI population to Israeli/Palestine
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
My favoured solution is Northern Irish Independence.
Leaves the UK and doesn't join the Republic.
This is a perfectly decent solution, which would give space for consideration of sensible questions about the future, and allow for NI politicians to learn grown up politics. A united Ireland would remain a future option. The status quo is an unstable farrago of nonsense.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
I reckon some deaths are with COVID, but the more interesting question is, how much life is being lost? We're all going to die at some point, but clearly COVID was taking years off some unlucky people's lives. It'd be interesting to know the average age of COVID deaths where the deceased was double vaccinated.
Yes they really ought to let us know what the average age is that people are dying from/with Covid 19, and also what the average number of years lost is.
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
I would personally go for WFH, some mask wearing and social distancing to try and reduce the spread. These things can all be easily adopted with negligible economic and social cost. Some people will carry on going to restaurants, bars etc and that is their choice; but the above measures would reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.
Yes, that's the sort of thing I'd support - I know that compared with some here I seem like a mad lockdowner, but what I'm really after is ways to limit the spread without either behaving as though the pandemic didn't exist or going into hermitry (because the effect of the former is to bring about the latter).
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
So overall we're running at around 1,200 extra deaths a week. Non-COVID excess deaths is around 500 a week.
Excess death stats are good, but they're a bit hazy anyway as the random variation in a single week must be significant when compared to a 5 year average of that particular week.
One thing with no restrictions (hopefully) this winter, deaths from other viruses which were crushed by lockdown (Mainly flu) should return to their normal levels. Though again flu can be very random. Excess deaths is a good metric, but not for cherry picking any particular week I think.
Err, you'll notice I've posted 14 weeks worth of data.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
I reckon some deaths are with COVID, but the more interesting question is, how much life is being lost? We're all going to die at some point, but clearly COVID was taking years off some unlucky people's lives. It'd be interesting to know the average age of COVID deaths where the deceased was double vaccinated.
Yes they really ought to let us know what the average age is that people are dying from/with Covid 19, and also what the average number of years lost is.
I think having skipped last winter, we're going to have a bad winter at some point. Perhaps we should try to avoid it this winter, but at some point we're going to have to pay the price for what we did in 2019-20.
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
I would personally go for WFH, some mask wearing and social distancing to try and reduce the spread. These things can all be easily adopted with negligible economic and social cost. Some people will carry on going to restaurants, bars etc and that is their choice; but the above measures would reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.
Yes, that's the sort of thing I'd support - I know that compared with some here I seem like a mad lockdowner, but what I'm really after is ways to limit the spread without either behaving as though the pandemic didn't exist or going into hermitry (because the effect of the former is to bring about the latter).
We already have some wfh, some mask wearing and some social distancing. So what is it you are changing? What is the governments role? Would you actually enforce some new rules?
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
So overall we're running at around 1,200 extra deaths a week. Non-COVID excess deaths is around 500 a week.
Excess death stats are good, but they're a bit hazy anyway as the random variation in a single week must be significant when compared to a 5 year average of that particular week.
One thing with no restrictions (hopefully) this winter, deaths from other viruses which were crushed by lockdown (Mainly flu) should return to their normal levels. Though again flu can be very random. Excess deaths is a good metric, but not for cherry picking any particular week I think.
Err, you'll notice I've posted 14 weeks worth of data.
Yes, but I looked a bit further back - we had negative excess deaths over the summer !
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
Some very simple sums show it isn't the case.
Exactly. Yet some intelligent and mathematically adept people come out with the line, still.
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
Would that not also apply to perception of antivaxxers?
Yes, thus the overlap between them (albeit there are quite a few who don't ascribe to the antivaxxer lunacy but point correctly to the vaccines being the way out). I don't know if I mentioned it here, but I've got my own hypothesis about antivaxxing: a big component is that it's an injection.
Not only is there the "Ow, I don't like needles" impulse (and we've all got that deep down; it's very easy to rationalise something around it), but the perception that something injected is a far larger and more significant medical thing than something inhaled, which is more significant than a pill to be taken. Despite the fact that pills can really be just as bad, if not worse.
Interesting thought. I wonder if there is any correlation with being a counterculture type, the druggie demographic so to speak (other than alcohol and tobacco etc), who instinctively fear injection for obvious reasons (overdoses, HIV, hepatitis, scarring ...). Or indeed a grown up version of that. By contrast, my experience of injections is solely medical and therefore benign.
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
What are the excess deaths figures looking like at the moment.
From earlier...
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
First 'traitor' of the day. Will it be the last?!
Ooh. Can I be added to the list. Nothing to celebrate about the creation of a nasty little statelet which proceeded to oppress its Catholic citizens.
Yep I would happily join that roll of honour as well. Being a 'traitor' to HYUFD's nightmare future seems the only sane position to take.
COVID numbers look bad at the moment, Its depressing and I understand the calls for Lockdown/passports or other restrictions, But:
Ironic as this sounds numbers are so high that they cant stay this high for long. in particular I am taking about 10-14 Year olds. in the Office for nautical statistics weekly COVID servery, where they go out and test a random group of people across age range and geography to get an pitcher of what is actually happening, in the last week, which is the week ending 9 October, 8.1% of 10-14 Year olds had COVID, 8.1% that's not a typo, link here:
At that rate 12 weeks and 3 days and the whole cohort while have had it, and if you are interested 12 weeks and 3 days means 28th December. but its not going to be like that for 4 reasons:
1) That rate will not hold steady for 12 weeks, its already gone up, which brings that date forward,
2) Many many kids have already had it which again brings it forward.
3) The dammed delayed Vaccine roll out for dins is at last happening if terribly showily, it will again bring it forward.
4) We will never get to 100% 99% maybe, but not quite 100%
The last 2 of those are pretty small, but the first 2 will have a big effect. so when will be get to the HIT, I don't know, but maybe soon, if 8.1% had it week ending 9 October, and last week was more than that, and this week seems to be even larger then a quarter of all that age group have had it in 3 weeks, maybe more than a quarter. we could have gone form 50& to 80%.
BREAKING UK govt has bought 730k doses of covid antiviral drugs molnupiravir and PF-07321332/ritonavir to administer to vulnerable people and keep them out of hospital.
Neither drug approved yet but NHS hoping to deploy them this winter. Story @theipaper
Brown is too low there. He should be top on this one. Look how he coordinated the global response to the bank crash. The GLOBAL response, note.
He'd have struggled with selling it to a sceptical nation though. What you really want is a League if National Heroes-
Thatch for the science and being decisive. Major for humanity and concern for the struggling. Blair for the motivational speeches. Brown for the money. Cameron for tucking the nation up and making them feel safe. May for the rules.
Johnson can go and do some colouring in or something.
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
I would personally go for WFH, some mask wearing and social distancing to try and reduce the spread. These things can all be easily adopted with negligible economic and social cost. Some people will carry on going to restaurants, bars etc and that is their choice; but the above measures would reduce the spread of the virus in the general population.
That is 'Plan B'. This "vaccine passports" thing is getting undue focus from both ends imo. It's neither the solution to living with covid nor some slippery slope to a gestapo society. I'm against fwiw, it fails the cost/benefit test unless done properly and we wouldn't do it properly.
Brown is too low there. He should be top on this one. Look how he coordinated the global response to the bank crash. The GLOBAL response, note.
He'd have struggled with selling it to a sceptical nation though. What you really want is a League if National Heroes-
Thatch for the science and being decisive. Major for humanity and concern for the struggling. Blair for the motivational speeches. Brown for the money. Cameron for tucking the nation up and making them feel safe. May for the rules.
Johnson can go and do some colouring in or something.
Wasn't there famously no money left at the end of Brown's premiership?
49,139 positive COVID cases and a further 179 deaths in the latest 24-hour period
This is where the usual suspects will insist that most or all of these are deaths "with covid" that would otherwise have happened anyway. Because an average of 1 in 1890 of the UK population, hugely skewed towards children, would expect to have 150+ deaths per day, wouldn't they?
I reckon some deaths are with COVID, but the more interesting question is, how much life is being lost? We're all going to die at some point, but clearly COVID was taking years off some unlucky people's lives. It'd be interesting to know the average age of COVID deaths where the deceased was double vaccinated.
Yes they really ought to let us know what the average age is that people are dying from/with Covid 19, and also what the average number of years lost is.
And the distribution of them.
After all, if we just look at averages, the average age of those affected by lockdown in the UK was 39. This doesn't mean that children and teens were unaffected by lockdown, even though the average age of everyone alive in the UK was 39.
On @MaxPB 's earlier comments re: benefits and entitlement: the focus should be on the high rate of working poverty in the UK, rather than for those out of work, particular when compared with Scandinavian countries.
The solution, mooted often here, is going to be a big reform to the earnings taper rate on UC and the marginal rate of tax. It's tricky though - UC serves to subsidise employers at the mo, and reducing the taper will not help. There is also the underlying problem of low productivity.
On the NHS: this is a classic moral hazard problem. The optics of punishing those overweight (over 60% of us!) doesn't work. How easy would it be to provide a £100 per annum tax refund to those with BMI 25?
That is indeed the problem with the UK system. It encourages bad behaviour - not by the low paid or unemployed but by business. Pay workers less than a living wage and expect the Government to make up the difference.
In Norway the minimum wage is around £17 an hour for cleaning staff.
I was involved when Brown introduced working tax credits, the predecessor to that part of UC. The argument for them is this. Say you're unemployed and your skill levels are low, so you're getting £X a week in JSA and no employer really wants you at minimum wage level £Y. Why not give the employer something like £X towards employing you for a while? The cost to the taxpayer is zero as they'd otherwise pay you £X to do nothing. The business is delighted to get you for a mere £Y-£X. And you're getting £Y-£X more per week, and you're back in the workforce, used to the habit of working regularly again and with luck learning new skills.
In the long term, we'd like employers to create jobs for lower-skilled staff with higher wages, as in Norway, and the market will tend to nudge that along, as we're seeing with some unpopular jobs now, from care workers to parking wardens to lorry drivers. But in the short term, to get people off UC, there's a good case for it - and it does require a generous taper to be attractive.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
First 'traitor' of the day. Will it be the last?!
Ooh. Can I be added to the list. Nothing to celebrate about the creation of a nasty little statelet which proceeded to oppress its Catholic citizens.
Well no surprise there then, you would probably have given the Falklands away free to Argentina in 1982 too
COVID numbers look bad at the moment, Its depressing and I understand the calls for Lockdown/passports or other restrictions, But:
Ironic as this sounds numbers are so high that they cant stay this high for long. in particular I am taking about 10-14 Year olds. in the Office for nautical statistics weekly COVID servery, where they go out and test a random group of people across age range and geography to get an pitcher of what is actually happening, in the last week, which is the week ending 9 October, 8.1% of 10-14 Year olds had COVID, 8.1% that's not a typo, link here:
At that rate 12 weeks and 3 days and the whole cohort while have had it, and if you are interested 12 weeks and 3 days means 28th December. but its not going to be like that for 4 reasons:
1) That rate will not hold steady for 12 weeks, its already gone up, which brings that date forward,
2) Many many kids have already had it which again brings it forward.
3) The dammed delayed Vaccine roll out for dins is at last happening if terribly showily, it will again bring it forward.
4) We will never get to 100% 99% maybe, but not quite 100%
The last 2 of those are pretty small, but the first 2 will have a big effect. so when will be get to the HIT, I don't know, but maybe soon, if 8.1% had it week ending 9 October, and last week was more than that, and this week seems to be even larger then a quarter of all that age group have had it in 3 weeks, maybe more than a quarter. we could have gone form 50& to 80%.
I figure, from the unsophisticated method of taking the ONS surveys and adding up the estimated fraction that were catching it every day (and scaling for the pre-ONS survey days by using hospitalisations as a metric for infections on the assumption that the infection hospitality rate would have been quite similar throughout the first six months or so) that 50%-70% of 11-17s have to have had the virus already.
If they have it for an average of about 11 days, and the rate has continued to increase, we're probably pretty close to that number ticking up by 1% per day at the moment.
Comments
The fact someone intelligent like you can’t see this is depressing. The purity is insane
Morocco has just banned flights from the UK. We’re going to be plague island once more
I think there's sod all chance of them being temporary.
Although it's always nice to be considered intelligent.
Also worth remembering we've seen a lot of ups and downs. Today's 'good' country suffers more tomorrow.
Combined with the removal of the entire Israeli/Palestinian population to NI.
Not sure why I find it such an attractive idea.....
We have enough herd immunity already to prevent exponential growth and the NHS collapsing. Now we need to fill in the gaps so that anyone unvaccinated becomes vaccinated via a more "natural" route as they've chosen to take.
The sooner they get it the better. No locking down to save antivaxxers.
Leaves the UK and doesn't join the Republic.
The solution, mooted often here, is going to be a big reform to the earnings taper rate on UC and the marginal rate of tax. It's tricky though - UC serves to subsidise employers at the mo, and reducing the taper will not help. There is also the underlying problem of low productivity.
On the NHS: this is a classic moral hazard problem. The optics of punishing those overweight (over 60% of us!) doesn't work. How easy would it be to provide a £100 per annum tax refund to those with BMI <25?
- Wondered if Facebook is try to buy an old American aircraft carrier
- Wondered if the Mafia are moving into pizza delivery.
- Wondered if starting to practise kendo with a piece of rebar is a good idea
Idiots that oppose them on principle are idiots
I like my sensible solution to the Palestine thing - build more land.
Margaret Thatcher - 29%
Tony Blair - 14%
Gordon Brown - 10%
Boris Johnson- 9%
Theresa May 4%
David Cameron 3%
John Major 3%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450843236474494977?s=20
The point of vaccination is to resume normal life, not as a pretext to impose social ostracism on those with the temerity to decline them.
And yes, yes, I have been double-vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise. But the insanity we're seeing in Italy/France where, it seems, those without their papers are cut adrift from work and society is wholly unacceptable.
Letting fear make you ready and willing to throw away the freedom to simply go about your business without presenting papers is not something I think conducive to good policy.
There are also other steps that could be taken, such as resuming social distancing.
Should probably step away from the computer for a while.
We could offer Wales as well.
And you all say HYUFD is nuts. Jeez Denise
Anyone advocating either a hard lockdown or vaccine passports right now is overreacting.
Mr. Cooke, it's very easy to get het up because of the situation (significant health/economic consequences and the like).
It'd just grow, sinking its roots until we had our very own social credit system.
Mr. Leon, I'd kill her, then have pizza and Margarita Shooters.
You’re all fucking batshit crazy
In Norway the minimum wage is around £17 an hour for cleaning staff.
Week ending: COVID deaths, non-COVID deaths in excess of the five-year average
09/07/2021: 183, 386
16/07/2021: 218, 229
23/07/2021: 327, 324
30/07/2021: 404, 679
06/08/2021: 527, 624
13/08/2021: 571, 699
20/08/2021: 570, 358
27/08/2021: 668, 443
03/09/2021: 659, -103 (bank holiday)
10/09/2021: 857, 996 (after bank holiday)
17/09/2021: 851, 852
24/09/2021: 888, 532
01/10/2021: 783, 350
08/10/2021: 666, 586
So overall we're running at around 1,200 extra deaths a week. Non-COVID excess deaths is around 500 a week.
Margaret Thatcher - 29%
Tony Blair - 14%
Gordon Brown - 10%
Boris Johnson- 9%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450843236474494977?s=20
I did assume for a long while that the denialism was down to straightforward fear and inability to accept a painful reality.
But a friend pointed out something else recently: a virus cannot be argued with, cannot be pressured, cannot be fired, cannot have public sentiment whipped up against it, cannot be voted out, and cannot be blamed.
If you can decide that a person was responsible, then they can be argued with, pressured, fired, have public opinion whipped up against them, voted out, and certainly be blamed.
There is therefore a big psychological draw to finding some way of blaming a person. If you accept that the virus is the key issue and that things like restrictions do the job - who can you blame? Who can you put pressure on? If it's the virus, it doesn't care. If, though, you can find a way to rationalise that it's NOT the virus but the Government/modellers/SAGE/other scientists and it was lockdown and restrictions that were the problem and not covid, then it's psychologically easier.
I don't know how much truth there may be to that, but it did make me stop and think.
It is noticeable how much warier EU-types are. They all wear masks. They presume they have to queue at bars to get a seat. They wait, patiently
The ague-ridden Brits swan about. Hmm
Blair leads among Labour voters (29%) but by nothing like Thatcher among Conservative voters (54%). Thatcher leads across all regions - including London & Scotland and among all ages 25+ - though in a statistical tie with Blair in 18-24 who mainly "don't know" (47).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/10/20/5228e/1?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1
Only Fools and Unionists
One Foot in the Parade
etc.
Ah!! Now it's corrected from haricot to hat trick. Thought it was yet another British expression that I had not come across. "To get a haricot"
I always thought it was a bit of a chick flick.
Certainly MrsT likes it more than I do.
We're looking at covid being maybe 2-3 times as deadly as influenza for all ages for those vaccinated (versus 20-30x for the unvaccinated). It still causes a significant problem because when it's rampant, it would also end up infecting the majority of the population and doing so in a few months (vice about a quarter to a third for an influenza outbreak).
So, with the vaxxed, we're looking at a situation about 5-10x as bad as a bad seasonal influenza outbreak. Which can cause considerable damage and unacceptable pressure on hospitals - but in comparison to last year, it's not even in the same league, let alone division.
Add to that the data from the booster shots looking like they reduce danger/deadliness by over a further factor of ten, and when the booster rollout is done, we're done.
As it stands, thanks to the vaccines, we actually only need to reduce R by about 20% to hit stability until the booster rollout is done. Could have been done by vaxxing all the teens (and should have been done by now).
Or maybe masking and encouraging WFH until the booster programme is out might be enough. Certainly no need for a hard lockdown, in my considered opinion.
Absolute worst-case I can see would be a 4-5 week return to Step 3 of the roadmap, but I suspect the masks/WFH would probably do the trick. It'll take us 4-5 weeks to see the benefit of a much accelerated teen jabs/booster jabs programme, so that should see us emerge from it.
One thing with no restrictions (hopefully) this winter, deaths from other viruses which were crushed by lockdown (Mainly flu) should return to their normal levels. Though again flu can be very random.
Excess deaths is a good metric, but not for cherry picking any particular week I think.
Not only is there the "Ow, I don't like needles" impulse (and we've all got that deep down; it's very easy to rationalise something around it), but the perception that something injected is a far larger and more significant medical thing than something inhaled, which is more significant than a pill to be taken. Despite the fact that pills can really be just as bad, if not worse.
Nothing to celebrate about the creation of a nasty little statelet which proceeded to oppress its Catholic citizens.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/8october2021
I think it's where COVID is mentioned on the death certificate.
HAHAHA
COVID numbers look bad at the moment, Its depressing and I understand the calls for Lockdown/passports or other restrictions, But:
Ironic as this sounds numbers are so high that they cant stay this high for long. in particular I am taking about 10-14 Year olds. in the Office for nautical statistics weekly COVID servery, where they go out and test a random group of people across age range and geography to get an pitcher of what is actually happening, in the last week, which is the week ending 9 October, 8.1% of 10-14 Year olds had COVID, 8.1% that's not a typo, link here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/15october2021
scroll down to fig 4.
At that rate 12 weeks and 3 days and the whole cohort while have had it, and if you are interested 12 weeks and 3 days means 28th December. but its not going to be like that for 4 reasons:
1) That rate will not hold steady for 12 weeks, its already gone up, which brings that date forward,
2) Many many kids have already had it which again brings it forward.
3) The dammed delayed Vaccine roll out for dins is at last happening if terribly showily, it will again bring it forward.
4) We will never get to 100% 99% maybe, but not quite 100%
The last 2 of those are pretty small, but the first 2 will have a big effect. so when will be get to the HIT, I don't know, but maybe soon, if 8.1% had it week ending 9 October, and last week was more than that, and this week seems to be even larger then a quarter of all that age group have had it in 3 weeks, maybe more than a quarter. we could have gone form 50& to 80%.
UK govt has bought 730k doses of covid antiviral drugs molnupiravir and PF-07321332/ritonavir to administer to vulnerable people and keep them out of hospital.
Neither drug approved yet but NHS hoping to deploy them this winter.
Story @theipaper
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1450854988377382917?s=20
What you really want is a League if National Heroes-
Thatch for the science and being decisive.
Major for humanity and concern for the struggling.
Blair for the motivational speeches.
Brown for the money.
Cameron for tucking the nation up and making them feel safe.
May for the rules.
Johnson can go and do some colouring in or something.
The question was who would be best placed to handle the outbreak. Not who would be best placed to CAUSE the outbreak.
After all, if we just look at averages, the average age of those affected by lockdown in the UK was 39.
This doesn't mean that children and teens were unaffected by lockdown, even though the average age of everyone alive in the UK was 39.
Mouth still hurts like hell.
Feeling very sorry for myself.
In the long term, we'd like employers to create jobs for lower-skilled staff with higher wages, as in Norway, and the market will tend to nudge that along, as we're seeing with some unpopular jobs now, from care workers to parking wardens to lorry drivers. But in the short term, to get people off UC, there's a good case for it - and it does require a generous taper to be attractive.
If they have it for an average of about 11 days, and the rate has continued to increase, we're probably pretty close to that number ticking up by 1% per day at the moment.