Corrupt, incompetent and unprincipled. Impressive work.
The incompetence is the amazing bit. The government is brilliant at populist stunts, and utterly useless about political management.
So its back to *why*. The vote was explicitly a putsch against the standards commissioner - Kwarteng confirmed that repeatedly this morning. And we know what she is planning to go after next - Carrie and the redecoration.
So I get the motives. How are they so godawful at the strategy, never mind the tactics.
I think they were hoping that she would resign yesterday off the back of this. The fact that she did not may well have caused them to realise their plan had failed. I am more and more inclined to the idea this was a targeted attack on the Commissioner who they believe to be biased.
They only think she is biased because she keeps finding Tory MPs to be in breach of the standards. And she's coming after Boris over who paid for Carrie's wallpaper.
We know who paid for the wallpaper: we did. Because large political donations are usually transactional and whatever the politicians are offering in return is paid for with our money.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
They're falling from the 52k mini peak but maintaining in the c. 40k new cases a day range that is still way too high. Hospitalisation too high. The genuine pressure on the NHS that could cause it to collapse very real.
That is why they have both Plan B and apparently Plan C. Not because I am "hysterical" as you kindly put it. Because the NHS management is "hysterical".
What restrictions do you advocate immediately and to what level would the data need to fall for you to advocate the status quo?
I advocate nothing. Thats my point. It isn't my opinion that matters. Its Whitty, Van-Tam, Taylor et al whose opinions matter.
The CEO of the NHS Confederation has set out in detail the perils that the NHS faces. Backed by the government health advisers. Listen to them, not me. The problem is that as you have already set your face to "Covid is over" and describe any data against as "hysterical" you are blind to the data...
A barefaced lie. Show me the post where I say Covid is over? Clue: you won’t be able to because I have said the exact opposite, repeatedly. It’s probably with us forever.
As for the rest of your post, you have no opinion now? How convenient. You can attack others but avoid any commitment yourself. Maybe you are right and hysterical is not the right descriptor. Let’s go with sanctimonious instead.
Blimey. My opinion - as it always has been - is to follow the science. Which is not being "hysterical" as you previously suggested.
Right here and now the science and the health experts say we need Plan B - something you described as "irrational". So I can say that you are "agitating" for Covid - the pandemic driving restrictions as opposed to the literal virus - to be over because you consistently are and have been in this very thread.
Waffle.
My view is that no more restrictions are necessary at this stage.
What’s yours?
That they are *likely* to be needed to stop the NHS collapsing. The difference between me and thee is that when they impose Plan B. Based on the evidence. You will keep saying we don't need it. That it is "irrational".
If it is "waffle" it is your waffle. I am directly quoting you.
What’s your position currently is what I asked. Do you advocate restrictions now or not? It’s a very simple question. You are simply embarrassing yourself further by failing to answer it.
As an aside I thought the Labour reply in Parliament was poor this morning. Thangam Debbonaire attacked the Government for trying to make the claim MPs were covered by employment law when they were a professional self regulating body. Now that may well be the case. But there have been numerous occasions in the past few years when Labour have specifically tried to get working conditions changed in Parliament on the basis that they run counter to employment legislation. It is hypocritical to now attack the Government on wanting a comparative employment system when that is the argument Labour have been making for years.
(Mind you of course it is hypocritical of the Government to swap their position as well.)
I think it's fine to make Parliament more accessible to allow for better diversity (family-friendly hours etc) but not to make Parliament more accessible for paid shills.
Remember that in cases like Paterson's the decision to recall or not is in the hands of the constituents, and the decision to reinstate or not is similarly up to the electorate. Suspension leading to recall election is not the same as being fired, so the comparison is somewhat strained.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
You have gone stark raving crackers this morning. That post was in response to the prospect of getting biannual jabs, which I agreed with Philip is absolutely fine, you daft sod.
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Suicide is an appalling thing to hit a family, a husband, even one as stupid or sleazy as Paterson. I have great sympathy for him on that.
But. But.
... politics is not a moral philosophy class, with voters not minding politicians wetting their beaks as they'd like to do it too (ca. @isam), then there seems little point debating it further.
...
Reminds me of a discussion with an insurance claims handler. He said that, in his estimation, one in ten thousand people tell the truth and if he thought otherwise, he would be out of a job tomorrow.
That sounds exciting, let's hope it lives up to the hype.
One criticism of our covid approach that did resonate with me was the complaint that we seem ignore all but the very worst cases. If it's bad stay at home. If's its really bad stay at home. If it's really really bad you may need to go to A&E. By which point in a deteriorating case things could be pretty bleak. What do we do about the in between cases?
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
That vote was an unforced error. His complaint is that the rules of natural justice do not apply to his case. There are two rules of natural justice, and one of them is nemo iudex in causa sua.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
I think you misread what you were replying to.
0/10 try again.
Keep scrolling up the quote thread
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Seasonal Covid booster jabs isn't the problem. They're trying to get everyone the first one of these and still we need Plan B as back-up. Because "If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes." isn't what it takes according to Whitty, Van-Tam, Taylor et al. We need boosters AND Plan B.
According to them anyway. As they know more than me on the subject I defer to them.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
You have gone stark raving crackers this morning. That post was in response to the prospect of getting biannual jabs, which I agreed with Philip is absolutely fine, you daft sod.
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
As an aside I thought the Labour reply in Parliament was poor this morning. Thangam Debbonaire attacked the Government for trying to make the claim MPs were covered by employment law when they were a professional self regulating body. Now that may well be the case. But there have been numerous occasions in the past few years when Labour have specifically tried to get working conditions changed in Parliament on the basis that they run counter to employment legislation. It is hypocritical to now attack the Government on wanting a comparative employment system when that is the argument Labour have been making for years.
(Mind you of course it is hypocritical of the Government to swap their position as well.)
I think it's fine to make Parliament more accessible to allow for better diversity (family-friendly hours etc) but not to make Parliament more accessible for paid shills.
Remember that in cases like Paterson's the decision to recall or not is in the hands of the constituents, and the decision to reinstate or not is similarly up to the electorate. Suspension leading to recall election is not the same as being fired, so the comparison is somewhat strained.
You get me wrong. I am not arguing against the changes that were proposed to increase accessibility, just that arguments matter and to use an argument to promote one position and then use the reverse to attack something you don't like is hypocritical. There were a vast number of ways that Debbonaire (Great name by the way) could have attacked the Government this morning, many of which have been used here. But she chose instead to use a line that is very easily open to criticism and rebuff.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
You have gone stark raving crackers this morning. That post was in response to the prospect of getting biannual jabs, which I agreed with Philip is absolutely fine, you daft sod.
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Plan B is not biannual jabs.
Yes, I know this. Your point is? I was simply replying to Philip’s post. Nothing to do with Plan B. Have a long lie down.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Absolutely but it is the messaging that is important. If we are going to have to have jabs for the foreseeable future then that needs to be introduced. "Booster" implies some kind of finality. 2x jabs then a booster and you're done.
What are they going to call jab #4?
Booster doesn't imply finality it just implies it boosts your protection. If jab 4 is required then that can be called a booster too, or anything else, it doesn't matter.
Those who want finality to Covid are in denial. It's something we need to live with.
It is about the government messaging. Why wasn't the second jab called a booster. The govt is going to have to introduce the idea that we are going to have jabs for the foreseeable future. I see no evidence that they are doing this.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
I honestly don't know why the government thought that protecting Owen Paterson was a good idea.
It looks more likely as the hours go by that Paterson was a stalking horse, sacrificed to protect Johnson.
Quite a clever wizard wheeze.
Johnson's a classicist. It'd be a pig, sheep or ox (I think chickens are too small to count for Tory MPs). And the best sacrifices came in sets of three, the suovetaurilia. Wonder who nos. 2 and 3 will be?
He has previously waxed lyrical about the hecatomb.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
I stand by everything I said and have said this is a farce too.
Doesn't change the fact that in any disciplinary system I've ever worked in there is always a right of appeal and there should be one here too. That's all I was saying and I completely stand by that.
I vehemently disagreed with HYUFD yesterday saying corruption is OK so don't conflate us please.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
At some bonkers level, some Conservatives seem to enjoy being humiliated by Boris like this. And OK, some of it's because he's a WINNER, but that's not the entire story.
At some point, every camel's back breaks, in which case Sir Graham Brady might need a bigger letterbox.
I have to admit that I am perplexed by this u-turn. Completely stunned. I am naive enough to think the tories collectively realised they were going on a path to the gutter, rather than it being some complex political calculation.
If people can praise Rayner for retracting her scum comments, then perhaps they might consider giving the tories some credit over this.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Absolutely but it is the messaging that is important. If we are going to have to have jabs for the foreseeable future then that needs to be introduced. "Booster" implies some kind of finality. 2x jabs then a booster and you're done.
What are they going to call jab #4?
Booster doesn't imply finality it just implies it boosts your protection. If jab 4 is required then that can be called a booster too, or anything else, it doesn't matter.
Those who want finality to Covid are in denial. It's something we need to live with.
It is about the government messaging. Why wasn't the second jab called a booster. The govt is going to have to introduce the idea that we are going to have jabs for the foreseeable future. I see no evidence that they are doing this.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
There is no need at all to introduce that idea yet. If that idea needs introducing in six or twelve months time it can be done then.
Getting this one rolled out is what matters, not how we deal with one for next winter.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
You have gone stark raving crackers this morning. That post was in response to the prospect of getting biannual jabs, which I agreed with Philip is absolutely fine, you daft sod.
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Plan B is not biannual jabs.
Yes, I know this. Your point is? I was simply replying to Philip’s post. Nothing to do with Plan B. Have a long lie down.
You started rubbish Plan B as "irrational". Then it continued onto how booster jabs will solve it. Philip said they would mean "we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally" and you said "exactly right".
But booster jabs will not save us this winter. We need them. And we need other measures, other "bullshit". You don't think we do. Its you knowing more about Covid than the NHS does again.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Exactly right. Who cares?
Whitty. Van-Tam. Taylor. The rest of the NHS management. Javid. Even Johnson.
They care. They don't want the NHS to collapse this winter. To protect you.
You have gone stark raving crackers this morning. That post was in response to the prospect of getting biannual jabs, which I agreed with Philip is absolutely fine, you daft sod.
Anabobazina said: Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Plan B is not biannual jabs.
Yes, I know this. Your point is? I was simply replying to Philip’s post. Nothing to do with Plan B. Have a long lie down.
You started rubbish Plan B as "irrational". Then it continued onto how booster jabs will solve it. Philip said they would mean "we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally" and you said "exactly right".
But booster jabs will not save us this winter. We need them. And we need other measures, other "bullshit". You don't think we do. Its you knowing more about Covid than the NHS does again.
Bollocks do we need them. Yes Plan B is completely irrational which is why it's not being implemented.
What is being rational and what is being rolled out is booster jabs. That's the only thing that matters.
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
I have to admit that I am perplexed by this u-turn. Completely stunned. I am naive enough to think the tories collectively realised they were going on a path to the gutter, rather than it being some complex political calculation.
If people can praise Rayner for retracting her scum comments, then perhaps they might consider giving the tories some credit over this.
As I expressed no opinions on Rayner's apology I think I'll continue to consider the Tories amoral, principle-free crooks whose actions are driven by perceived self interest and cowardice when they fcuk up (as they have certainly done on this occasion).
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
I stand by everything I said and have said this is a farce too.
Doesn't change the fact that in any disciplinary system I've ever worked in there is always a right of appeal and there should be one here too. That's all I was saying and I completely stand by that.
I vehemently disagreed with HYUFD yesterday saying corruption is OK so don't conflate us please.
I disagree with the suggestion that you are anywhere near HYUFD on this.
Question - the right of appeal. If the independent commissioner was judge, jury and executioner I would agree with you. She is not - the report then goes in front of MPs. If the finding was obviously wrong the accused has the ability to appeal to MPs not to approve the findings.
In this case the evidence is plentiful, the findings damning. The sudden rush to try and abolish the entire system isn't because of any kind of outrage that Mr Paterson has been done over - he hasn't. Its because of the egregious threat the commissioner presents to the PM.
Corrupt, incompetent and unprincipled. Impressive work.
I prefer my bad bastards to be generally competent or at least reasonably smart like Campbell or Cummings. Why would we put up with incompetent bastards? What is the upside?
Corrupt, incompetent and unprincipled. Impressive work.
I prefer my bad bastards to be generally competent or at least reasonably smart like Campbell or Cummings. Why would we put up with incompetent bastards? What is the upside?
They wind up the liberal metropolitan elite. (aka city dwellers with a degree)
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Absolutely but it is the messaging that is important. If we are going to have to have jabs for the foreseeable future then that needs to be introduced. "Booster" implies some kind of finality. 2x jabs then a booster and you're done.
What are they going to call jab #4?
Booster doesn't imply finality it just implies it boosts your protection. If jab 4 is required then that can be called a booster too, or anything else, it doesn't matter.
Those who want finality to Covid are in denial. It's something we need to live with.
It is about the government messaging. Why wasn't the second jab called a booster. The govt is going to have to introduce the idea that we are going to have jabs for the foreseeable future. I see no evidence that they are doing this.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
There is no need at all to introduce that idea yet. If that idea needs introducing in six or twelve months time it can be done then.
Getting this one rolled out is what matters, not how we deal with one for next winter.
I agree. We need to jab the shit of of people right now. We can see that this isn't happening and they need to step it up rapidly. Appears to be two issues - the system not allowing the people who want the booster to get one, and not enough people wanting one thanks to messaging.
Booster jabs aren't going to be enough - are are *likely* not to be enough. Hence the need for Plan B. Its a plan, they haven't implemented it yet. But it would be a massive failing not to have one ready to deploy when needed.
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Oh I agree. I will take any and all vaccines offered to me.
I am optimistic that the nasal spray vaccines now being tested will be much more effective against transmission, and if that's the fourth dose we might not need another.
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
Yes. Remember the announcement that the PM had to fly home from the environment summit because busy? Wasn't because busy being PM, was in a private jet to get to a private dinner for ex Telegraph hacks.
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he and I see little evidence MPs will change their vote from yesterday on that.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases
Have you not received the memo? Your lot are going to have another vote to reinstate the sanctions recommended. They have completely dropped the thing you spent so many hours debasing yourself to argue for.
Gosh, u turn. Wonder what'll happen now then. I feel a bit like cyclefree's post about all of this. I'm getting close to the point where I don't really care about what actual policies we get from Boris Johnson. It's important to be rid of him regardless. Or to put it another way, I think I'd rather have a PM/government which has some integrity enacting policy I disagree with than one with no integrity doing things I like. Not that this government are doing much that I like but you get my drift.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Only 232 MPs voted to suspend Paterson yesterday, there is no guarantee a majority of MPs will vote to suspend him on a second vote either
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Yes, this has GOT to have hurt his chances of survive a possible recall election and reelection bid if he stands. It'll be interesting to see whether, if he's recalled, he stands as a Conservative, independent, or not at all. Either way, as long as his constituents get to make the judgement I'm comfortable.
Actually, they look pretty good at suppressing transmission. Within the fully vaccinated group, transmission lines die out quite quickly - just not instantly.
It's the unvaxxed that provide the engine room for ongoing transmission.
Leakage from teens to parents is main driver of cases rise in the older, more vaxxed population. Remove that engine room, and cases should drop considerably. The muffling effect of immunity on every virus generation as it tries to move through an unfriendly vaccinated population causes those chains to exponentially decay.
You are probably right, and I am understating the degree to which tranmission is reduced, but doesn't that chart show that the only groups where rates are falling are the most recently vaccinated young adults, and the recently boosted elderly? Everyone else is seeing higher rates. What am I misunderstanding? Surely this chart suggests that everybody will need a regular booster, because efficacy wanes quite quickly.
So if I restate my point I'd say, the vaccine does not confer lifelong protection — having your jab does not mean covid is over for you, as too many seem to think — and that we will need regular vaccination campaigns to suppress transmission.
I realise this is basically quibling about the probably small difference between your "pretty good" and my "aren't really much good" viewpoints.
The main rise in is the unvaccinated young.
The secondary (far lesser) rise is in those of parental age to the unvaccinated young. Even though those immediately older (mid-fifties to mid-seventies) will have had longer vaccine waning.
This points to repeated and sustained exposure (from the kids) being the primary source of infections in the middle-aged, rather than lateral transmission across the same age group. The older ones inching very slowly up would be the onward transmission from the middle-aged infectees plus exposure to grandchildren plus gradually waning immunity.
This points to the overwhelming driver of infections being the unvaccinated. And that when it gets into other (more vaccinated) age groups, the virus struggles and can only make any headway when regularly replenished from the pool of immunologically naive. Once it gets into the higher immunity groups, it decays.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
I stand by everything I said and have said this is a farce too.
Doesn't change the fact that in any disciplinary system I've ever worked in there is always a right of appeal and there should be one here too. That's all I was saying and I completely stand by that.
I vehemently disagreed with HYUFD yesterday saying corruption is OK so don't conflate us please.
I disagree with the suggestion that you are anywhere near HYUFD on this.
Question - the right of appeal. If the independent commissioner was judge, jury and executioner I would agree with you. She is not - the report then goes in front of MPs. If the finding was obviously wrong the accused has the ability to appeal to MPs not to approve the findings.
In this case the evidence is plentiful, the findings damning. The sudden rush to try and abolish the entire system isn't because of any kind of outrage that Mr Paterson has been done over - he hasn't. Its because of the egregious threat the commissioner presents to the PM.
Your middle point is a good one. The right of appeal over the commissioners findings was arguably the parliamentary vote.
The practical problem is that rights of appeal, whilst in principle a good thing, can potentially go on indefinetly. They serve the interests of those that can afford them. Many areas of public policy involve judgements against which there is no right of appeal (for instance the finding of a planning authority about how a neighbouring building project may affect them), as long as the correct legal process has been followed.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
No recall if they vote to suspend him for 9 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Only 232 MPs voted to suspend Paterson yesterday, there is no guarantee a majority of MPs will vote to suspend him on a second vote either
I have to admit that I am perplexed by this u-turn. Completely stunned. I am naive enough to think the tories collectively realised they were going on a path to the gutter, rather than it being some complex political calculation.
If people can praise Rayner for retracting her scum comments, then perhaps they might consider giving the tories some credit over this.
In terms of damage, I think it is likely that as long as they played the publicity right the Tories may have managed to get out of yesterday's farce by steaming on while mitigating the impact. allowing the passage of time to do its work
But the u-turn means an admission that yesterday was wrong, incompetent and an abuse of political power.
How lucky the Tories are that there is no other party that can win an election outright, and that no other party has in place the competence, the policies and the formidable reputation that Labour had acquired by 1997. Without those factors I think this would be a crucial moment. As it is, it's a wait and see.
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Only 232 MPs voted to suspend Paterson yesterday, there is no guarantee a majority of MPs will vote to suspend him on a second vote either
It is 100% certain he is going to be suspended
Completely agreed.
18 vote margin with a three line whip and that was on amending the process not overturning the decision without an appeal.
There's going to be no real division at all if it goes to a straight vote.
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
He did and I think Hunt was right.
But there's been a u-turn since. Not a chance either Boris or Hunt will vote against suspending him if there's no appeal first now that there's been a u-turn.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
I stand by everything I said and have said this is a farce too.
Doesn't change the fact that in any disciplinary system I've ever worked in there is always a right of appeal and there should be one here too. That's all I was saying and I completely stand by that.
I vehemently disagreed with HYUFD yesterday saying corruption is OK so don't conflate us please.
I disagree with the suggestion that you are anywhere near HYUFD on this.
Question - the right of appeal. If the independent commissioner was judge, jury and executioner I would agree with you. She is not - the report then goes in front of MPs. If the finding was obviously wrong the accused has the ability to appeal to MPs not to approve the findings.
In this case the evidence is plentiful, the findings damning. The sudden rush to try and abolish the entire system isn't because of any kind of outrage that Mr Paterson has been done over - he hasn't. Its because of the egregious threat the commissioner presents to the PM.
Your middle point is a good one. The right of appeal over the commissioners findings was arguably the parliamentary vote.
The practical problem is that rights of appeal, whilst in principle a good thing, can potentially go on indefinetly. They serve the interests of those that can afford them. Many areas of public policy involve judgements against which there is no right of appeal (for instance the finding of a planning authority about how a neighbouring building project may affect them), as long as the correct legal process has been followed.
There is a cross party Commons Committee which reviews decisions take by the Standards Commissioner - and which in this case allowed Paterson written and oral submissions, together with legal representation, before presenting its decision. There's also the backstop (as we've seen) of a vote in the Commons, and then beyond that, the court of public opinion (which appears already to have rendered its verdict in this case).
I'n sure it's possible to improve the procedures, checks and balances. But there was no indication from the Paterson case of any desperately urgent requirement to do so.
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
He did and I think Hunt was right.
But there's been a u-turn since. Not a chance either Boris or Hunt will vote against suspending him if there's no appeal first now that there's been a u-turn.
So you still think it was right to vote to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process even now then. Interesting.
I of course before the vote yesterday said I would probably not have voted for Leadsom's amendment, though once it went through made clear I supported the review of the process to ensure witnesses and appeals are allowed.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
Paterson has still not been suspended has he.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases but Paterson is still not getting the sanction of suspension the Standards Commissioner called for
Oh yes he is
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
Only 232 MPs voted to suspend Paterson yesterday, there is no guarantee a majority of MPs will vote to suspend him on a second vote either
It is 100% certain he is going to be suspended
Completely agreed.
18 vote margin with a three line whip and that was on amending the process not overturning the decision without an appeal.
There's going to be no real division at all if it goes to a straight vote.
250 conservative mps have the chance to right this wrong
Furthermore only 482 mps voted yesterday with 115 conservatives missing who must be furious at this mismanagement
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
End of furlough scheme not associated with catastrophic unemployment, ONS says:
"Following the end of the furlough scheme 16% of businesses had staff still on the scheme and were asked approximately what proportion of those furloughed employees had:
been made permanently redundant - 3%
returned to work on increased hours - 6%
returned to work on the same number of hours - 65%
returned to work on reduced hours - 16%
voluntarily left their role - 3%
other - 8%"
I'm guessing "other" is perhaps significantly changed roles (it's pretty consistent across business types).
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
He did and I think Hunt was right.
But there's been a u-turn since. Not a chance either Boris or Hunt will vote against suspending him if there's no appeal first now that there's been a u-turn.
So you still think it was right to vote to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process even now then. Interesting.
I of course before the vote yesterday said I would probably not have voted for Leadsom's amendment, though once it went through made clear I supported the review of the process to ensure witnesses and appeals are allowed
You are manfully wading through a sea of porridge. Keep it up!
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Yesterday on radio 5 I listened in shock as a scientist pointed out how much higher our testing regime is than other countries, and if you take that into account we are not so out of step with our community levels of Covid. Refreshing.
After an incredibly slow start, I think this is probably the most important thing to keep an eye on for the winter.
I don't understand why the USA is dragging its heels so much in the booster rollout considering they had a big head start on that. Its worth remembering that although the UK rolled out jabs first, we prioritised first jabs first, so other nations had a higher share of second jabs for a while that need boosting sooner.
America was for a very long time ahead of us on second jabs, so they should be well ahead on boosters and they're just not.
It's interesting isn't it. We are calling it a "booster" when in actual fact it is a "third jab".
What implications this has for a "fourth dose", and a "fifth dose" is an interesting question.
I couldn't care less if we have a fourth, fifth . . . 80th etc jab having a new one every six or twelve months if required.
The flu jab is annual, why can't the Covid jab be annual or biannual?
If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes.
Absolutely but it is the messaging that is important. If we are going to have to have jabs for the foreseeable future then that needs to be introduced. "Booster" implies some kind of finality. 2x jabs then a booster and you're done.
What are they going to call jab #4?
Booster doesn't imply finality it just implies it boosts your protection. If jab 4 is required then that can be called a booster too, or anything else, it doesn't matter.
Those who want finality to Covid are in denial. It's something we need to live with.
It is about the government messaging. Why wasn't the second jab called a booster. The govt is going to have to introduce the idea that we are going to have jabs for the foreseeable future. I see no evidence that they are doing this.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
If they have to give boosters every year then it will be the annual Covid vaccine, just as we have an annual flu vaccine.
One reason to call the third dose a booster dose, rather than a third dose, is to not put off people who haven't had the first or second dose.
It's similar to how there was a film called, "The Madness of King George" which omitted to mention he was George III in the title, because they didn't want to make potential viewers think they'd missed films one and two and so not to bother to watch the "third".
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
Very poor judgment on his part.
I think that Paterson's complaint, such as it is, is that the panel of MPs that he appeared before refused to listen to 17 witnesses who were going to say what a jolly nice, public spirited chap he was. Their position was that they had statements from these witnesses and their evidence was simply not relevant. I suspect that the right to lead irrelevant evidence of this sort will be given in future but I do not see how a different conclusion can be reached on the charges he faced on the agreed facts.
As for Paterson's call on the Commissioner to resign...jeez. He really has learned nothing from this process. He deserves to lose his seat, he really does, if only for that piece of idiocy alone.
It would be interesting to know who decided this U turn was necessary. At least someone in the government has some sort of grip on reality but the damage is severe.
The secondary (far lesser) rise is in those of parental age to the unvaccinated young. Even though those immediately older (mid-fifties to mid-seventies) will have had longer vaccine waning.
This points to repeated and sustained exposure (from the kids) being the primary source of infections in the middle-aged, rather than lateral transmission across the same age group. The older ones inching very slowly up would be the onward transmission from the middle-aged infectees plus exposure to grandchildren plus gradually waning immunity.
This points to the overwhelming driver of infections being the unvaccinated. And that when it gets into other (more vaccinated) age groups, the virus struggles and can only make any headway when regularly replenished from the pool of immunologically naive. Once it gets into the higher immunity groups, it decays.
I do see what you are saying, and you may well be correct. That said I do wonder to what extent these apparent patterns are simply a reflection of social circles, timing, and current behaviour. Will the pattern hold through the winter, and cases will decline as children are vaccinated or infected, or will we see a bulge of cases amongst other age groups as the efficacy wanes?
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
He did and I think Hunt was right.
But there's been a u-turn since. Not a chance either Boris or Hunt will vote against suspending him if there's no appeal first now that there's been a u-turn.
So you still think it was right to vote to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process even now then. Interesting.
I of course before the vote yesterday said I would probably not have voted for Leadsom's amendment, though once it went through made clear I supported the review of the process to ensure witnesses and appeals are allowed.
Yes I do. Just because there's been a u-turn doesn't change my views. I think its right that there are serious allegations of problems in this report and it is right that there should be a right to appeal.
However if there isn't going to be an appeal then the guilty verdict stands and he must face his punishment. There are absolutely no grounds not to have the punishment, other than the verdict was reversed on appeal.
End of furlough scheme not associated with catastrophic unemployment, ONS says:
"Following the end of the furlough scheme 16% of businesses had staff still on the scheme and were asked approximately what proportion of those furloughed employees had:
been made permanently redundant - 3%
returned to work on increased hours - 6%
returned to work on the same number of hours - 65%
returned to work on reduced hours - 16%
voluntarily left their role - 3%
other - 8%"
I'm guessing "other" is perhaps significantly changed roles (it's pretty consistent across business types).
Or retired. A surprisingly large number of them were over 65.
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
You would regain respect if you could just say:-
'I was wrong yesterday'
I did not vote on Leadsom, I was not one of the 250 MPs who voted for Leadsom, indeed at the time I said I probably would not have voted for it. I did however agree that the suspension of MPs procedure needed review to ensure appeals and witnesses could be called.
I also have grave reservations about recall processes, otherwise we end up like California with recalls every 5 minutes to try and force by elections in seats of opponent MPs to try and take their seats
End of furlough scheme not associated with catastrophic unemployment, ONS says:
"Following the end of the furlough scheme 16% of businesses had staff still on the scheme and were asked approximately what proportion of those furloughed employees had:
been made permanently redundant - 3%
returned to work on increased hours - 6%
returned to work on the same number of hours - 65%
returned to work on reduced hours - 16%
voluntarily left their role - 3%
other - 8%"
I'm guessing "other" is perhaps significantly changed roles (it's pretty consistent across business types).
Or retired. A surprisingly large number of them were over 65.
I assumed that was covered by "voluntarily leaving their role", but maybe not.
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
Very poor judgment on his part.
I think that Paterson's complaint, such as it is, is that the panel of MPs that he appeared before refused to listen to 17 witnesses who were going to say what a jolly nice, public spirited chap he was. Their position was that they had statements from these witnesses and their evidence was simply not relevant. I suspect that the right to lead irrelevant evidence of this sort will be given in future but I do not see how a different conclusion can be reached on the charges he faced on the agreed facts.
As for Paterson's call on the Commissioner to resign...jeez. He really has learned nothing from this process. He deserves to lose his seat, he really does, if only for that piece of idiocy alone.
It would be interesting to know who decided this U turn was necessary. At least someone in the government has some sort of grip on reality but the damage is severe.
I think the U turn is actual way worse for the Government than just holding on and ignoring all complaints.
Very brave or not as independent as we are led to believe.
Brave - I really cannot see what damage increasing the base rates to 0.25% would have done.
I did think the difficult decision was next April / May when with base rates returned to 0.5% they would have to decide whether to keep them there or go to the scarily high, not seen since 2009 rate of 0.75%
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
You would regain respect if you could just say:-
'I was wrong yesterday'
I did not vote on Leadsom, I was not one of the 250 MPs who voted for Leadsom, indeed at the time I said I probably would not have voted for it. I did however agree that the suspension of MPs procedure needed review to ensure appeals and witnesses could be called.
I also have grave reservations about recall processes, otherwise we end up like California with recalls every 5 minutes to try and force by elections in seats of opponent MPs to try and take their seats
You can twist and turn but you were the one attempting to defend the indefensible
You have been called out across the political divide so a little bit of humility would seem appropriate
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
Philip has had the grace to come back and take the catcalls. Credit to him for that.
I predict the HYUFD will be back shortly to tell us that none of this matters, because majority of 80. etc.
Oh indeed. Nothing worse than players who only show up when the sun is out. P and H are not such. They do not shirk the wet Wednesday night under the lights at Stoke.
Anyway I need to blow my own just slightly. Yesterday was remarkable on here in that I have never since I joined seen such unanimity on a matter of domestic politics. Just a wave of condemnation about the stunt being pulled from all sides, left right, remain leave, tory labour, woke antiwoke, young old, mod rocker, you name it. And including many many bellwether posters such as ... well loads.
Therefore I intuited (and said) it wouldn't hold, it just couldn't, and lo it seems I was right!
Time for Conservative MPs to get their letters in to the 1922. Really, there are plenty of Conservative MPs who can do a better job than this.
It was the majority of Conservative MPs who voted not to suspend Paterson and to review the standards proceedings, Boris did not do this alone
Pathetic response
Jeremy Hunt, Boris' main leadership rival from 2019, even signed Leadsom's amendment to block Paterson's suspension and overhaul the Commons suspension process
You would regain respect if you could just say:-
'I was wrong yesterday'
I did not vote on Leadsom, I was not one of the 250 MPs who voted for Leadsom, indeed at the time I said I probably would not have voted for it. I did however agree that the suspension of MPs procedure needed review to ensure appeals and witnesses could be called.
I also have grave reservations about recall processes, otherwise we end up like California with recalls every 5 minutes to try and force by elections in seats of opponent MPs to try and take their seats
You can twist and turn but you were the one attempting to defend the indefensible
You have been called out across the political divide so a little bit of humility would seem appropriate
The Leadsom amendment was defensible, I defended it and I don't retract anything I said yesterday.
What was utterly indefensible was HYUFD saying "Tories don't care about corruption". That was shocking and repugnant and falls along side sending in tanks, overriding democracy etc in making it seem that HYUFD is a false flag so rotten it is as a thought.
Any explanation for the 31 Labour MPs missing in action yesterday? Was there any pairing?
60 missing Tory MPs - is a good starting point.
Yeah but how many of those were able to vote and chose not to? I've just checked my local MP, Kevin Brennan, who didn't vote. He was away on a DCMS outing so basically paired.
Some big names who didn't vote:
Ed Miliband Hilary Benn Keir Starmer (covid) Margaret Beckett Barry Gardiner Rebecca Long-Bailey John Trickett Rosie Winterton
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD at this difficult time. Defending the government line is not easy when Caligula is in charge.
He crawled through lava on here over the last 24 hours to haughtily defend the indefensible only for the government to then drop it.
Bless.
Let's not forget Philip. He put in a shift too. He wouldn't be happy at H getting top banana billing.
Philip has had the grace to come back and take the catcalls. Credit to him for that.
I predict the HYUFD will be back shortly to tell us that none of this matters, because majority of 80. etc.
Oh indeed. Nothing worse than players who only show up when the sun is out. P and H are not such. They do not shirk the wet Wednesday night under the lights at Stoke.
Anyway I need to blow my own just slightly. Yesterday was remarkable on here in that I have never since I joined seen such unanimity on a matter of domestic politics. Just a wave of condemnation about the stunt being pulled from all sides, left right, remain leave, tory labour, woke antiwoke, young old, mod rocker, you name it. And including many many bellwether posters such as ... well loads.
Therefore I intuited (and said) it wouldn't hold, it just couldn't, and lo it seems I was right!
Comments
Bless.
Remember that in cases like Paterson's the decision to recall or not is in the hands of the constituents, and the decision to reinstate or not is similarly up to the electorate. Suspension leading to recall election is not the same as being fired, so the comparison is somewhat strained.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Plan B is not biannual jabs.
One criticism of our covid approach that did resonate with me was the complaint that we seem ignore all but the very worst cases. If it's bad stay at home. If's its really bad stay at home. If it's really really bad you may need to go to A&E. By which point in a deteriorating case things could be pretty bleak. What do we do about the in between cases?
Perhaps he has today changed his mind.
Anabobazina said:
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Seasonal Covid booster jabs isn't the problem. They're trying to get everyone the first one of these and still we need Plan B as back-up. Because "If that's what it takes to ensure people are protected and we don't need any other bullshit to live our lives normally, then that's what it takes." isn't what it takes according to Whitty, Van-Tam, Taylor et al. We need boosters AND Plan B.
According to them anyway. As they know more than me on the subject I defer to them.
And it matters because as you appreciate it is all about vaccine take-up.
Doesn't change the fact that in any disciplinary system I've ever worked in there is always a right of appeal and there should be one here too. That's all I was saying and I completely stand by that.
I vehemently disagreed with HYUFD yesterday saying corruption is OK so don't conflate us please.
At some point, every camel's back breaks, in which case Sir Graham Brady might need a bigger letterbox.
Credit to him for that.
I predict the HYUFD will be back shortly to tell us that none of this matters, because majority of 80. etc.
If people can praise Rayner for retracting her scum comments, then perhaps they might consider giving the tories some credit over this.
Getting this one rolled out is what matters, not how we deal with one for next winter.
But booster jabs will not save us this winter. We need them. And we need other measures, other "bullshit". You don't think we do. Its you knowing more about Covid than the NHS does again.
What is being rational and what is being rolled out is booster jabs. That's the only thing that matters.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/04/azeem-rafiq-says-institutional-racism-is-key-issue-after-gary-ballance-admits-racial-slur-cricket
Pleased to be reappointed to my role as PPS to Michael Gove. Busy department and work to get on with. #LevellingUp
https://twitter.com/AJRichardsonMP/status/1456223903949393927?t=4WDy1a7LzU0o3z11h1aqlw&s=19
In other gossip:
As far as I can piece it together this appears to be pretty much entirely on the PM. He had a meeting with Charles Moore, who's been campaigning for Paterson, on Tuesday night and the decision to do a three line whip was taken after that.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1456219238126047236?t=yulURKOw96-0PItlbwCEWw&s=19
Question - the right of appeal. If the independent commissioner was judge, jury and executioner I would agree with you. She is not - the report then goes in front of MPs. If the finding was obviously wrong the accused has the ability to appeal to MPs not to approve the findings.
In this case the evidence is plentiful, the findings damning. The sudden rush to try and abolish the entire system isn't because of any kind of outrage that Mr Paterson has been done over - he hasn't. Its because of the egregious threat the commissioner presents to the PM.
Booster jabs aren't going to be enough - are are *likely* not to be enough. Hence the need for Plan B. Its a plan, they haven't implemented it yet. But it would be a massive failing not to have one ready to deploy when needed.
All that has happened is the government is only going to change the rights of appeal and right to call witnesses for future cases
I am optimistic that the nasal spray vaccines now being tested will be much more effective against transmission, and if that's the fourth dose we might not need another.
Some reunion dinner of Tory hacks.
The vote takes place within 30 days, he is going to be suspended and through this disgraceful behaviour yesteday the irony is he may now lose his seat
The secondary (far lesser) rise is in those of parental age to the unvaccinated young. Even though those immediately older (mid-fifties to mid-seventies) will have had longer vaccine waning.
This points to repeated and sustained exposure (from the kids) being the primary source of infections in the middle-aged, rather than lateral transmission across the same age group. The older ones inching very slowly up would be the onward transmission from the middle-aged infectees plus exposure to grandchildren plus gradually waning immunity.
This points to the overwhelming driver of infections being the unvaccinated. And that when it gets into other (more vaccinated) age groups, the virus struggles and can only make any headway when regularly replenished from the pool of immunologically naive. Once it gets into the higher immunity groups, it decays.
The practical problem is that rights of appeal, whilst in principle a good thing, can potentially go on indefinetly. They serve the interests of those that can afford them. Many areas of public policy involve judgements against which there is no right of appeal (for instance the finding of a planning authority about how a neighbouring building project may affect them), as long as the correct legal process has been followed.
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/jailed-11022021094244.html
They must be in a letter writing mood.
But the u-turn means an admission that yesterday was wrong, incompetent and an abuse of political power.
How lucky the Tories are that there is no other party that can win an election outright, and that no other party has in place the competence, the policies and the formidable reputation that Labour had acquired by 1997. Without those factors I think this would be a crucial moment. As it is, it's a wait and see.
18 vote margin with a three line whip and that was on amending the process not overturning the decision without an appeal.
There's going to be no real division at all if it goes to a straight vote.
But there's been a u-turn since. Not a chance either Boris or Hunt will vote against suspending him if there's no appeal first now that there's been a u-turn.
There's also the backstop (as we've seen) of a vote in the Commons, and then beyond that, the court of public opinion (which appears already to have rendered its verdict in this case).
I'n sure it's possible to improve the procedures, checks and balances. But there was no indication from the Paterson case of any desperately urgent requirement to do so.
I of course before the vote yesterday said I would probably not have voted for Leadsom's amendment, though once it went through made clear I supported the review of the process to ensure witnesses and appeals are allowed.
Furthermore only 482 mps voted yesterday with 115 conservatives missing who must be furious at this mismanagement
"Following the end of the furlough scheme 16% of businesses had staff still on the scheme and were asked approximately what proportion of those furloughed employees had:
been made permanently redundant - 3%
returned to work on increased hours - 6%
returned to work on the same number of hours - 65%
returned to work on reduced hours - 16%
voluntarily left their role - 3%
other - 8%"
I'm guessing "other" is perhaps significantly changed roles (it's pretty consistent across business types).
One reason to call the third dose a booster dose, rather than a third dose, is to not put off people who haven't had the first or second dose.
It's similar to how there was a film called, "The Madness of King George" which omitted to mention he was George III in the title, because they didn't want to make potential viewers think they'd missed films one and two and so not to bother to watch the "third".
'I was wrong yesterday'
I think that Paterson's complaint, such as it is, is that the panel of MPs that he appeared before refused to listen to 17 witnesses who were going to say what a jolly nice, public spirited chap he was. Their position was that they had statements from these witnesses and their evidence was simply not relevant. I suspect that the right to lead irrelevant evidence of this sort will be given in future but I do not see how a different conclusion can be reached on the charges he faced on the agreed facts.
As for Paterson's call on the Commissioner to resign...jeez. He really has learned nothing from this process. He deserves to lose his seat, he really does, if only for that piece of idiocy alone.
It would be interesting to know who decided this U turn was necessary. At least someone in the government has some sort of grip on reality but the damage is severe.
Bank shares dropping
However if there isn't going to be an appeal then the guilty verdict stands and he must face his punishment. There are absolutely no grounds not to have the punishment, other than the verdict was reversed on appeal.
A surprisingly large number of them were over 65.
I also have grave reservations about recall processes, otherwise we end up like California with recalls every 5 minutes to try and force by elections in seats of opponent MPs to try and take their seats
Gas prices are an interesting indicator on this. I very strongly suspect that in 12 months time they'll be considerably lower than they are now.
I did think the difficult decision was next April / May when with base rates returned to 0.5% they would have to decide whether to keep them there or go to the scarily high, not seen since 2009 rate of 0.75%
You have been called out across the political divide so a little bit of humility would seem appropriate
Anyway I need to blow my own just slightly. Yesterday was remarkable on here in that I have never since I joined seen such unanimity on a matter of domestic politics. Just a wave of condemnation about the stunt being pulled from all sides, left right, remain leave, tory labour, woke antiwoke, young old, mod rocker, you name it. And including many many bellwether posters such as ... well loads.
Therefore I intuited (and said) it wouldn't hold, it just couldn't, and lo it seems I was right!
Man rejected by voters but appointed to ministerial role by PM subsequently pays for PM's holiday. Nothing to see here...
What was utterly indefensible was HYUFD saying "Tories don't care about corruption". That was shocking and repugnant and falls along side sending in tanks, overriding democracy etc in making it seem that HYUFD is a false flag so rotten it is as a thought.
Some big names who didn't vote:
Ed Miliband
Hilary Benn
Keir Starmer (covid)
Margaret Beckett
Barry Gardiner
Rebecca Long-Bailey
John Trickett
Rosie Winterton