Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
It was teamwork
Just like Better Together II will be the team to defeat what is obviously your ideology.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
Edit: And before someone says Florida as a UK comparator, there are some differences, e.g. weather, lifestyle. I'm thinking more a France or Germany (even there, different population density)
The Green vote in this poll is fascinating. It should worry both Labour and the Tories. Labour should be concerned it is sticky and will not be won back during a GE campaign. The Tories should be even more concerned about the opposite.
My guess is it will make very little difference.
From what I can tell most Green voters in recent opinion polls are young, liberal, metropolitan types. I think they would be concentrated in seats like Bristol West, Sheffield Central, Streatham, etc. Labour could lose 10,000 votes to the Greens in each of those seats and the only effect would be to improve their vote distribution.
So if the Greens are high in the polls then I'd expect Labour to outperform UNS, but these Green voters aren't really going to help them in the seats that they've lost to the Tories in recent general elections.
I haven’t seen the poll tans but three scenarios off the top of my head.
First, the poll is shite. The idea that Greens would switch directly from the Tories makes no sense. Possible but unlikely and the poll fits in with other Con scores.
Second, Con voters have switched to the Greens but mainly a cause of both the Paterson issue and the relentless COP26 coverage and related articles. I’d imagine these would be wealthier Tories (mainly who votes Remain) in traditional, HC Con seats. This is actually quite positive for BJ as (1) he can put out some Green policies to win them back (2) they will probably head back to the Tories when things die down and (3) they split the opposition in seats where the LD is second. Conversely, this would be bad for the LDs for obvious reasons.
Third, it’s the iceberg effect where the overall score is hiding a big shift of Labour urban professional voters moving to the Greens but compensated with Red Wall voters switching from Tory to Labour. Obviously the best for Labour and most problematic for BJ.
Take your pick.
It seems incredible that after a week or so of bad headlines for the Conservatives, they lose 5 points to the Greens whilst Labour are unchanged. Strange times
Because Labour are still uninspiring and the water companies are pumping pure shit into our rivers
Honestly, reading about this pollution brings out MY inner Green and I might vote for them myself. It is hideous. So I can see why others are feeling similar. Also COP of course
A certain type of upper middle class, wealthy and educated moderate Conservative in London or the South could vote LD or Green but would never, ever even consider voting Labour.
Um 1997 called round, offering you it's history book.
Even then it was more the lower middle class and skilled working class who went Labour and most of those swing voters are still backing the Tories under Boris as well as plenty of those who voted for Blair then but voted for Boris in 2019.
Upper middle class areas like Oxford West and Abingdon, Richmond Park, Cheltenham, Kingston Upon Thames, Harrogate, Bath, Lewes, Winchester etc went LD in 1997 not Labour. They have been joined by wealthy, graduate filled seats like Brighton Pavilion which voted for Cameron in 2010 but now has a Green MP. Here in Epping Forest wealthy Buckhurst Hill has 2 Green district councillors and a Green Parish Council
Sunderland has Green councillors
Used to be the colour used by Labour IIRC. Back in the 50's.
Go back far enough and every colour has been used by the Tories at one time or another.
Tories inconsistent; now why would I believe that?
Joking aside it's really only since WWII that the colours have settled down.
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
"Unrestrained passage would be completed at the end of January, then the virus will no longer find any infectious unvaccinated or vaccinated people. Until then > 250,000 people died. Nobody wants to imagine the situation in the health system with 150,000 hospitalizations per week."
They won't have that doomsday scenario, but they will have a very tough lockdown to avoid it. In the depths of winter half of Europe is going to be locked down and the UK will be a small island of freedom because we did the grownup thing and took the exit wave in the summer rather than pretending we wouldn't ever have to deal with it like most European countries.
It's really sad that the people in Europe have been completed let down. Their leaders failed to see the bigger picture and thought that preventing one person from dying tomorrow is worthy enough to risk a lockdown in winter.
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
Saxony has a vaccination rate of 57% and it's not budging very quickly. That's really not enough against Delta, and Germany has avoided huge waves in the past, so they have a large reservoir of people without any immunity from prior infection
In combination it could be disastrous especially as we head into winter. I could see health systems buckling in these particular regions
The German biz guy is probably right. They will inevitably need more restrictions and they will have to get medieval on the vaccine refuseniks
The sheer political incompetence of Patergate is what disturbs me most.
Boris is meant to have decent instincts, a kind of cunning. Completely absent here. He needs much much better advisors (not Carrie) who can stand up to him. He needs a new Dom
Boris has never had decent political instincts - for the past 18 months he's usually left things until only 1 decision remains.
What he used to have were people around him who made the decisions before they got near Boris so he was presented with the final decision to announce. And Boris now seems to have lost those people.
That's what I meant, but possibly phrased it badly. He has good instincts when it comes to hiring, so he often gets good advice. That has stopped
It's our old friend hubris. Johnson's gotten away with murder so often he thinks he always can. Crank in a somewhat but not completely relevant comparison? Yes ok. Blair. Triumph in NI. The Balkans. Sierra Leone. Britain loves him. America loves him. Everybody loves him except Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn. He gets to thinking his judgment is impeccable and he can persuade anybody of anything. Iraq.
Yes, agreed
I don't think Johnson is personally corrupt - as in, a man on the take, trying to siphon off public funds, build a huge platinum castle in Dorset etc etc
That's not his style. He rides a bicycle. Financial gain does not pleasure him.
But he does like to think he can break the rules and he also finds those rules irritating and restricting - "why the F do we have to do this, can't we do it another way". He's constitutionally a rebel and he thinks he can busk his way through anything.
It brings him close to disaster but it can also brings political triumphs. At the moment he is closer to disaster than triumph
Allowing for your warm leanings towards him, yes, fair enough. I do see him as corrupt, deeply, but not particularly in the personal finances sense. I think I've worked out why you like him btw. He vanquished Remain and you find him entertaining, both of which things are very important to you. In him you have a politician who not only works over your foes but does so in a manner which elicits a chuckle. It's irresistible, I sense, and this is why it'll take a lot for you to throw him over.
Sir K being heard in near silence as he takes on Johnson's corruption.
If Boris does not learn and quickly his mps will and Boris's Premiership ends
If there is one lesson the Tories ought to have cynically learnt from the last 11 years is that getting rid of your leader is very good at wiping the electorate's memory. If Boris goes and, say, a Rishi comes in then Boris and his antics will likely be quickly forgotten. Particularly if the new government is sensible in denouncing anything that went on before was nothing to do with them.
It's a good thing to try, but there are a couple of caveats.
First, that would be the third time in a row that a PM elected at a GE was ditched before the next one (Cameron 2015, May 2017, Johnson 2019). There comes a point where replacing a failing PM transforms into taking the mickey and showing poor judgement by the party.
Second, there's nobody who is both party-acceptable who isn't compromised by working with BoJo.
Might well work. If it is, say, Rishi, why wouldn't the public see him as a clean slate? He surely would govern differently.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
It was teamwork
Just like Better Together II will be the team to defeat what is obviously your ideology.
But even the British were leftwing nationalists as well. Churchill + Attlee.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
IIRC my chats with pollsters about 50-75% of this fieldwork would have been conducted before the Owen Paterson farrago, so it could have been much worse for the Tories and the PM.
Yes, the Tories could be down to the low 30s soon. This has irritated people that would normally be pretty solid Tory voters.
Paraphrasing one of my banker friends "not only do they want to tax us into poverty, they want to shovel the money to their donors". It's hurting the party's reputation for boring competence a lot.
The free holidays are also getting a lot more attention than I would have thought too.
What has really hurt the most though is defending Paterson. It is the most obvious case of lobbying misconduct that even the most uninitiated can see he got paid then Randox got paid. It being Randox also doesn't help because millions of people have paid £50-80 for day 2 tests with them. The connection between that money they've spent with Randox and the Tory party giving them a contract has been made.
Yes, and the investigation into Paterson was all about issues that predated Covid. So Randox getting huge contracts for Covid testing hasn't come under much scrutiny yet, although it will. Paterson apparently had discussions with Lord Bethell, Health Minister in the HoL. Randox's contracts were awarded without tendering. It stinks to me.
I don’t know anything about Patterson’s conversations
But Randox is a large and very well regarded UK Dx company. They were a very logical choice for a supplier. And there was no ducking way you could run a full ordinary course tender process in the middle of a pandemic. You needed stuff and you needed it fast.
If Randox is such a large, well-regarded company and the logical choice for a supplier, why would it need to pay so much money to a backbencher? Randox was paying for something? What was it?
Key question indeed. I'm curious what Paterson thought it was for. Charity?
Interesting selection of flags in Fabricant's office.
I think it's the Grand Union flag on the left, and is that the old South African flag between the Welsh flag and the Soviet Union flag?
Yes, it is. WTF is going on there? Surely this isn't real.
Places he visited in the 1980s apparently, not an endorsement.
Though I'm not sure a trip to Wales is something to write home about.
Seems a little arbitrary. And also seems unlikely that he only visited four places in the 80s, two of which were highly controversial and one was the least controversial destination imaginable. And it doesn't explain the Grand Union flag - presumably he didn't go there in the 80s?
"Unrestrained passage would be completed at the end of January, then the virus will no longer find any infectious unvaccinated or vaccinated people. Until then > 250,000 people died. Nobody wants to imagine the situation in the health system with 150,000 hospitalizations per week."
They won't have that doomsday scenario, but they will have a very tough lockdown to avoid it. In the depths of winter half of Europe is going to be locked down and the UK will be a small island of freedom because we did the grownup thing and took the exit wave in the summer rather than pretending we wouldn't ever have to deal with it like most European countries.
It's really sad that the people in Europe have been completed let down. Their leaders failed to see the bigger picture and thought that preventing one person from dying tomorrow is worthy enough to risk a lockdown in winter.
The right question that was asked in this country at the start of summer was "if not now, when?"
Its really depressing that the leaders across the continent didn't have the courage to ask and answer that question.
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
Saxony has a vaccination rate of 57% and it's not budging very quickly. That's really not enough against Delta, and Germany has avoided huge waves in the past, so they have a large reservoir of people without any immunity from prior infection
In combination it could be disastrous especially as we head into winter. I could see health systems buckling in these particular regions
The German biz guy is probably right. They will inevitably need more restrictions and they will have to get medieval on the vaccine refuseniks
They could be in for big trouble if over 40% are not vaccinated. I don't have sympathy for those who have chosen not to get jabbed. I feel for vaccinated people whose lives will be heavily negatively impacted by the poor decisions made by others. It could be a very tough few months for them.
I am optimistic that in the UK that the combination of large pools of people who have had Covid already and booster jabs will see us through the winter. I think there is quite a high chance that we have reached, or will do soon, herd immunity.
"Unrestrained passage would be completed at the end of January, then the virus will no longer find any infectious unvaccinated or vaccinated people. Until then > 250,000 people died. Nobody wants to imagine the situation in the health system with 150,000 hospitalizations per week."
They won't have that doomsday scenario, but they will have a very tough lockdown to avoid it. In the depths of winter half of Europe is going to be locked down and the UK will be a small island of freedom because we did the grownup thing and took the exit wave in the summer rather than pretending we wouldn't ever have to deal with it like most European countries.
It's really sad that the people in Europe have been completed let down. Their leaders failed to see the bigger picture and thought that preventing one person from dying tomorrow is worthy enough to risk a lockdown in winter.
The right question that was asked in this country at the start of summer was "if not now, when?"
Its really depressing that the leaders across the continent didn't have the courage to ask and answer that question.
I think they were too busy pointing at the rosbifs and saying not to be like them.
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
Reuter's estimate Germany will take another ≈ 100 days to get to our level of double vax.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
It was teamwork
Just like Better Together II will be the team to defeat what is obviously your ideology.
But even the British were leftwing nationalists as well. Churchill + Attlee.
"Unrestrained passage would be completed at the end of January, then the virus will no longer find any infectious unvaccinated or vaccinated people. Until then > 250,000 people died. Nobody wants to imagine the situation in the health system with 150,000 hospitalizations per week."
They won't have that doomsday scenario, but they will have a very tough lockdown to avoid it. In the depths of winter half of Europe is going to be locked down and the UK will be a small island of freedom because we did the grownup thing and took the exit wave in the summer rather than pretending we wouldn't ever have to deal with it like most European countries.
It's really sad that the people in Europe have been completed let down. Their leaders failed to see the bigger picture and thought that preventing one person from dying tomorrow is worthy enough to risk a lockdown in winter.
The right question that was asked in this country at the start of summer was "if not now, when?"
Its really depressing that the leaders across the continent didn't have the courage to ask and answer that question.
I think they were too busy pointing at the rosbifs and saying not to be like them.
A reminder that the French consume more beef per capita than the Brits, and Brits consume more garlic per capita than the French. Allez les rosbifs!
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
I'm a bit late to this but I have just caught up with the phenomenal rugby talent that is Marcus Smith
So I have spent almost an hour watching highlights on YouTube. The highlight of the highlights might be this near-unbelievable try for Quins against Wasps (voted the Try of the Season). But there are videos like this going back five years to his days as a sixth form prodigy
The Green vote in this poll is fascinating. It should worry both Labour and the Tories. Labour should be concerned it is sticky and will not be won back during a GE campaign. The Tories should be even more concerned about the opposite.
My guess is it will make very little difference.
From what I can tell most Green voters in recent opinion polls are young, liberal, metropolitan types. I think they would be concentrated in seats like Bristol West, Sheffield Central, Streatham, etc. Labour could lose 10,000 votes to the Greens in each of those seats and the only effect would be to improve their vote distribution.
So if the Greens are high in the polls then I'd expect Labour to outperform UNS, but these Green voters aren't really going to help them in the seats that they've lost to the Tories in recent general elections.
I haven’t seen the poll tans but three scenarios off the top of my head.
First, the poll is shite. The idea that Greens would switch directly from the Tories makes no sense. Possible but unlikely and the poll fits in with other Con scores.
Second, Con voters have switched to the Greens but mainly a cause of both the Paterson issue and the relentless COP26 coverage and related articles. I’d imagine these would be wealthier Tories (mainly who votes Remain) in traditional, HC Con seats. This is actually quite positive for BJ as (1) he can put out some Green policies to win them back (2) they will probably head back to the Tories when things die down and (3) they split the opposition in seats where the LD is second. Conversely, this would be bad for the LDs for obvious reasons.
Third, it’s the iceberg effect where the overall score is hiding a big shift of Labour urban professional voters moving to the Greens but compensated with Red Wall voters switching from Tory to Labour. Obviously the best for Labour and most problematic for BJ.
Take your pick.
You needn't have bothered with 2. It isn't that. And I agree 1 is unlikely. So it's 3. Labour are leaking left to the Greens and pulling in from the centre. This is the exact dynamic needed to GTTO at the GE. Things are looking up for SKS and looking just a little bit concerning for MMM.
I recall, a long while back, when there was a bit of Greengasm - did well in some local elections. Were getting support from some quite unusual quarters too, until the RedGreen politics got highlighted.
Think this was back in New Labour times?
Must have been, yes. Few can be aware these days that the Greens are proper Left.
Speaking of which, the Greens, that reminds me, your party piece, "The Green Belt is Institutionally Racist".
There's a flaw. Or at least there might be. The Green Belt isn't really an Institution, is it? Didn't anyone raise that point?
Sir K being heard in near silence as he takes on Johnson's corruption.
If Boris does not learn and quickly his mps will and Boris's Premiership ends
If there is one lesson the Tories ought to have cynically learnt from the last 11 years is that getting rid of your leader is very good at wiping the electorate's memory. If Boris goes and, say, a Rishi comes in then Boris and his antics will likely be quickly forgotten. Particularly if the new government is sensible in denouncing anything that went on before was nothing to do with them.
It's a good thing to try, but there are a couple of caveats.
First, that would be the third time in a row that a PM elected at a GE was ditched before the next one (Cameron 2015, May 2017, Johnson 2019). There comes a point where replacing a failing PM transforms into taking the mickey and showing poor judgement by the party.
Second, there's nobody who is both party-acceptable who isn't compromised by working with BoJo.
Is working with BoJo a complete no-no. Rishi has been very careful / lucky to always be away when awkward things are occurring
Interesting selection of flags in Fabricant's office.
I think it's the Grand Union flag on the left, and is that the old South African flag between the Welsh flag and the Soviet Union flag?
Yes, it is. WTF is going on there? Surely this isn't real.
Places he visited in the 1980s apparently, not an endorsement.
Though I'm not sure a trip to Wales is something to write home about.
Seems a little arbitrary. And also seems unlikely that he only visited four places in the 80s, two of which were highly controversial and one was the least controversial destination imaginable. And it doesn't explain the Grand Union flag - presumably he didn't go there in the 80s?
IIRC my chats with pollsters about 50-75% of this fieldwork would have been conducted before the Owen Paterson farrago, so it could have been much worse for the Tories and the PM.
Yes, the Tories could be down to the low 30s soon. This has irritated people that would normally be pretty solid Tory voters.
Paraphrasing one of my banker friends "not only do they want to tax us into poverty, they want to shovel the money to their donors". It's hurting the party's reputation for boring competence a lot.
The free holidays are also getting a lot more attention than I would have thought too.
What has really hurt the most though is defending Paterson. It is the most obvious case of lobbying misconduct that even the most uninitiated can see he got paid then Randox got paid. It being Randox also doesn't help because millions of people have paid £50-80 for day 2 tests with them. The connection between that money they've spent with Randox and the Tory party giving them a contract has been made.
Yes, and the investigation into Paterson was all about issues that predated Covid. So Randox getting huge contracts for Covid testing hasn't come under much scrutiny yet, although it will. Paterson apparently had discussions with Lord Bethell, Health Minister in the HoL. Randox's contracts were awarded without tendering. It stinks to me.
I don’t know anything about Patterson’s conversations
But Randox is a large and very well regarded UK Dx company. They were a very logical choice for a supplier. And there was no ducking way you could run a full ordinary course tender process in the middle of a pandemic. You needed stuff and you needed it fast.
How many shares does Charles have then, usual Tory mince about too busy for tenders so just give it to my family/best chums guff as well.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
John Rentoul Retweeted Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 1m New Lowest Westminster Voting Intention for Conservatives post 2019 GE.
Full Results (8 Nov):
Conservative 37% (-3) Labour 36% (+1) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 6% (–) Scottish National Party 5% (+1) Reform UK 5% (+2) Other 1% (-1)
Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide
Surely it must be margin of error, since HY has told us all that the poll which came out the day after the Paterson story broke proves it has hardly dented Conservative support at all?
Brendan May @bmay 46 Tory MPs out of 360 have turned up to a debate on improving standards of behaviour among MPs, which is the entire problem staring us in the face right there. #TorySleaze #torybritain
House prices are relative. A northern town can have an area with house prices below or near the national average but it’s still a “nice area”.
Take East Boldon in Sunderland. One of the nicer parts of Sunderland. The average house price there is around £245,000, below the national average but expensive for the area.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
Hello Carnyx, Brisket will have been getting his info from Commando comics , hence not realising Russia were in the war.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
The vast majority of our cancellations of treatments did not occur due to restrictions or lockdown but due to the hospitals having no capacity for anything else due to being swamped with covid.
It's difficult, therefore, to see a route where allowing a lot more covid to run wild would have ended up with a better outcome for the health service. It's easier to see an outcome where earlier and/or harsher restrictions would have curtailed the input of hospital admissions to a greater extent and seen fewer delayed and cancelled non-covid treatments overall.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
Hmmm, GTTO?
https://www.abbreviations.com/GTTO says: 1. German Transport and Trading Organization? 2. Get the trolls out? 3. Global Technology Transactions Organization?
Ah, no. 2 gives me clue to the intended meaning. Get the Trots out? And thus become electable?
Ha, yes, nice one. GTTO to enable GTTO. This is indeed the essence of the SKS project.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
I agree with those points.
Really, I think it comes down (for me) to whether we'd have seen health system carnage if we'd "done a Sweden".
If we would, then we'd have surely had the lockdown in the end anyway, just a few weeks later (so all or at least most the associated costs of that) combined with a shell-schocked health service, so the same or worse delays in treatments, mass burnout, possibly much higher health service staff deaths.
If we would have scraped through, then it becomes very interesting, doesn't it? The extra deaths traded against less school disruption, less routine treatment delays, better mental health. Hard to say and differs from person to person. Sweden much better if your business didn't go under or your cancer got diagnosed to treat; much worse if your gran, dad or brother died.
I'm not even sure how you could measure it overall, in a way that would carry majority agreement.
I think we would not have scraped through so it becomes quite an easy call for me. If I became convinced that we could have scraped through. Well, as I said, interesting. I'd maybe say the Sweden way was better.
Brendan May @bmay 46 Tory MPs out of 360 have turned up to a debate on improving standards of behaviour among MPs, which is the entire problem staring us in the face right there. #TorySleaze #torybritain
They won't take lectures on ethical behaviour from the likes of [anyone who isn't paying]
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
If Sweden does better than the vast majority of countries, but not better than Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland, is that evidence they've done well or badly? It probably depends entirely on one's pre-existing views about Covid-19 and how to deal with it.
The Green vote in this poll is fascinating. It should worry both Labour and the Tories. Labour should be concerned it is sticky and will not be won back during a GE campaign. The Tories should be even more concerned about the opposite.
My guess is it will make very little difference.
From what I can tell most Green voters in recent opinion polls are young, liberal, metropolitan types. I think they would be concentrated in seats like Bristol West, Sheffield Central, Streatham, etc. Labour could lose 10,000 votes to the Greens in each of those seats and the only effect would be to improve their vote distribution.
So if the Greens are high in the polls then I'd expect Labour to outperform UNS, but these Green voters aren't really going to help them in the seats that they've lost to the Tories in recent general elections.
I haven’t seen the poll tans but three scenarios off the top of my head.
First, the poll is shite. The idea that Greens would switch directly from the Tories makes no sense. Possible but unlikely and the poll fits in with other Con scores.
Second, Con voters have switched to the Greens but mainly a cause of both the Paterson issue and the relentless COP26 coverage and related articles. I’d imagine these would be wealthier Tories (mainly who votes Remain) in traditional, HC Con seats. This is actually quite positive for BJ as (1) he can put out some Green policies to win them back (2) they will probably head back to the Tories when things die down and (3) they split the opposition in seats where the LD is second. Conversely, this would be bad for the LDs for obvious reasons.
Third, it’s the iceberg effect where the overall score is hiding a big shift of Labour urban professional voters moving to the Greens but compensated with Red Wall voters switching from Tory to Labour. Obviously the best for Labour and most problematic for BJ.
Take your pick.
You needn't have bothered with 2. It isn't that. And I agree 1 is unlikely. So it's 3. Labour are leaking left to the Greens and pulling in from the centre. This is the exact dynamic needed to GTTO at the GE. Things are looking up for SKS and looking just a little bit concerning for MMM.
I recall, a long while back, when there was a bit of Greengasm - did well in some local elections. Were getting support from some quite unusual quarters too, until the RedGreen politics got highlighted.
Think this was back in New Labour times?
Must have been, yes. Few can be aware these days that the Greens are proper Left.
Speaking of which, the Greens, that reminds me, your party piece, "The Green Belt is Institutionally Racist".
There's a flaw. Or at least there might be. The Green Belt isn't really an Institution, is it? Didn't anyone raise that point?
The instructor on the course actually said that the "Institutionally" part means any organised social structure - so the Green Belt, which is legally enforced, codified in law etc would qualify.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
Brendan May @bmay 46 Tory MPs out of 360 have turned up to a debate on improving standards of behaviour among MPs, which is the entire problem staring us in the face right there. #TorySleaze #torybritain
I'm not watching, what's the overall attendance? Presumably better from opposition even if not 100%
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
We also gave most of our children an education which was half baked at best for a year or so. That's going to come back to bite us.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
Davey under the microscope by the BBC as he has a lobbying job
Isn't that something not do with his disabled son?
This is the risk though, for the opposition parties. If they're not all squeaky clean (and, let's be honest, they're probably not, or at least things will be raised that look dodgy) then 'corrupt sleazy Tories' can easily turn into 'corrupt sleazy MPs' and that's not really in any party's interests (except maybe RefUK; Greens if Lucas comes out clean; any of the other smaller ones if they can establish themselves as anti-establishment).
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
Saxony has a vaccination rate of 57% and it's not budging very quickly. That's really not enough against Delta, and Germany has avoided huge waves in the past, so they have a large reservoir of people without any immunity from prior infection
In combination it could be disastrous especially as we head into winter. I could see health systems buckling in these particular regions
The German biz guy is probably right. They will inevitably need more restrictions and they will have to get medieval on the vaccine refuseniks
They could be in for big trouble if over 40% are not vaccinated. I don't have sympathy for those who have chosen not to get jabbed. I feel for vaccinated people whose lives will be heavily negatively impacted by the poor decisions made by others. It could be a very tough few months for them.
I am optimistic that in the UK that the combination of large pools of people who have had Covid already and booster jabs will see us through the winter. I think there is quite a high chance that we have reached, or will do soon, herd immunity.
Is that 57% of the population, 57% of adults, 57% of over 12 or what?
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
"Satan opposes SNP!" isn't the headline you were looking for
I made my point clear enough. We defeated left-wing nationalism in the 1940s - It's just a shame we have the exact same problem on our island today.
'defeated'? I thought the Soviets won, thumpingly.
Hello Carnyx, Brisket will have been getting his info from Commando comics , hence not realising Russia were in the war.
I'm aware that Russia was in the war and that ROI was neutral if that perks up the debate
The sheer political incompetence of Patergate is what disturbs me most.
Boris is meant to have decent instincts, a kind of cunning. Completely absent here. He needs much much better advisors (not Carrie) who can stand up to him. He needs a new Dom
Boris has never had decent political instincts - for the past 18 months he's usually left things until only 1 decision remains.
What he used to have were people around him who made the decisions before they got near Boris so he was presented with the final decision to announce. And Boris now seems to have lost those people.
That's what I meant, but possibly phrased it badly. He has good instincts when it comes to hiring, so he often gets good advice. That has stopped
It's our old friend hubris. Johnson's gotten away with murder so often he thinks he always can. Crank in a somewhat but not completely relevant comparison? Yes ok. Blair. Triumph in NI. The Balkans. Sierra Leone. Britain loves him. America loves him. Everybody loves him except Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn. He gets to thinking his judgment is impeccable and he can persuade anybody of anything. Iraq.
Yes, agreed
I don't think Johnson is personally corrupt - as in, a man on the take, trying to siphon off public funds, build a huge platinum castle in Dorset etc etc
That's not his style. He rides a bicycle. Financial gain does not pleasure him.
But he does like to think he can break the rules and he also finds those rules irritating and restricting - "why the F do we have to do this, can't we do it another way". He's constitutionally a rebel and he thinks he can busk his way through anything.
It brings him close to disaster but it can also brings political triumphs. At the moment he is closer to disaster than triumph
Allowing for your warm leanings towards him, yes, fair enough. I do see him as corrupt, deeply, but not particularly in the personal finances sense. I think I've worked out why you like him btw. He vanquished Remain and you find him entertaining, both of which things are very important to you. In him you have a politician who not only works over your foes but does so in a manner which elicits a chuckle. It's irresistible, I sense, and this is why it'll take a lot for you to throw him over.
Yes, he's like a forward who not only scores goals but does it elegantly, in a way that makes opponents depressed
You want that in your team even if the same player does stupid things and gets sent off or whatever
As for corruption, I sense he is amoral rather than immoral; but I know others sincerely differ, and of course amorality is not brilliant in itself
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
Great, so long as you realize they'll end up counting it. Thing is, you are your vote and your vote is you. People try and deny this but I'm not inclined to let them.
Sir K being heard in near silence as he takes on Johnson's corruption.
If Boris does not learn and quickly his mps will and Boris's Premiership ends
If there is one lesson the Tories ought to have cynically learnt from the last 11 years is that getting rid of your leader is very good at wiping the electorate's memory. If Boris goes and, say, a Rishi comes in then Boris and his antics will likely be quickly forgotten. Particularly if the new government is sensible in denouncing anything that went on before was nothing to do with them.
It's a good thing to try, but there are a couple of caveats.
First, that would be the third time in a row that a PM elected at a GE was ditched before the next one (Cameron 2015, May 2017, Johnson 2019). There comes a point where replacing a failing PM transforms into taking the mickey and showing poor judgement by the party.
Second, there's nobody who is both party-acceptable who isn't compromised by working with BoJo.
Is working with BoJo a complete no-no. Rishi has been very careful / lucky to always be away when awkward things are occurring
He's probably the Conservatives' best bet, given that Hunt won't get past the party unless things get really bad.
But Rishi was a prominent Boris Backer from the start. So it would be more of a Thatcher-Major handover than May-Johnson, which really was a relaunch.
And Major was able to ditch the Poll Tax to show he was a new man. Rishi can't do that with BoJo's signature policy...
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
Great, so long as you realize they'll end up counting it. Thing is, you are your vote and your vote is you. People try and deny this but I'm not inclined to let them.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
The vast majority of our cancellations of treatments did not occur due to restrictions or lockdown but due to the hospitals having no capacity for anything else due to being swamped with covid.
It's difficult, therefore, to see a route where allowing a lot more covid to run wild would have ended up with a better outcome for the health service. It's easier to see an outcome where earlier and/or harsher restrictions would have curtailed the input of hospital admissions to a greater extent and seen fewer delayed and cancelled non-covid treatments overall.
The decks were cleared in anticipation of Covid and everything postponed. And of course Covid was rife. But everything? What's the difference between a Covid death and a death from cancer a year later. At present certain cancer appointments in certain areas are being scheduled in 11 months time in the NHS (and four privately).
I am not wishing away Covid I am asking whether Sweden for all its lagging behind its three nearest neighbours and no doubt share of excess deaths had its health service overwhelmed and what happened to the other treatments.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
Disagree. All SKS and Labour have to do is convince everyone that they are pragmatic and not ideological apart from a bit more fairness on tax and similar. Any strong impression of identity politics, Tans rights extremism or being Woke and they will blow a golden opportunity.
You don't disagree because that's exactly what I meant!
And don't worry, there'll be no edgy superwoke under Starmer. He's seeking to win from the centre. The template is NL.
Fascinating and alrming thread by a German dude who has modelled likely Covid outcomes there
I have no firm idea if he is talking sense but he seems well-informed. He reckons Germany is facing a nightmare scenario unless they impose new restrictions very soon AND start vaccinating the refuseniks immediately
"In total, there would be around 70,000 deaths after November 1, 2021 and at times over 2 million Long Covid patients."
The Doomsday Szenarien is off the charts
Blimey! Another 70,000 deaths would put Germany on 1968 deaths per million population. That's almost as bad as the UK's 2074 deaths per million. Presumably he regards the UK as already beyond the doomsday scenario.
He doesn't reference the UK (tho many of the replies do)
And that's not his Doomsday Szenarien. In the worst case, he thinks Germany will suffer ANOTHER 250,000 deaths and possibly a collapsed health system
I have no idea if he is accurate, and it's worth pointing out a few things. eg He seems to be a bit of a doom-mongerer because in the replies he's got people saying "you predicted apocalypse last time and it never happened". And he's not an expert, as far as I can see, more a number crunching businessman.
Nonetheless it does look a bit hairy for Germany, at this point
He's done modelling whereas I'm just typing what I think. However, I don't see how his scenario is possible in a heavily vaccinated country even with vaccine effectiveness declining. One caveat could be if vaccination rates in the East are much lower then there might be a significant problem there.
Saxony has a vaccination rate of 57% and it's not budging very quickly. That's really not enough against Delta, and Germany has avoided huge waves in the past, so they have a large reservoir of people without any immunity from prior infection
In combination it could be disastrous especially as we head into winter. I could see health systems buckling in these particular regions
The German biz guy is probably right. They will inevitably need more restrictions and they will have to get medieval on the vaccine refuseniks
They could be in for big trouble if over 40% are not vaccinated. I don't have sympathy for those who have chosen not to get jabbed. I feel for vaccinated people whose lives will be heavily negatively impacted by the poor decisions made by others. It could be a very tough few months for them.
I am optimistic that in the UK that the combination of large pools of people who have had Covid already and booster jabs will see us through the winter. I think there is quite a high chance that we have reached, or will do soon, herd immunity.
Is that 57% of the population, 57% of adults, 57% of over 12 or what?
Population, I believe. And the number is now 59%. I just read that Saxony has brought in severe new rules whereby the unvaxed are not allowed in any public indoor space, so maybe this WILL work
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
You have absolutely no idea about that last assertion. Scientific papers are a dime a dozen. What if Hitler had won WWII how would his son Chuck have handled Covid?
Why compare Sweden with its geographical neighbours. Show us all the graphs vs the EU 27/28.
re the Sweden article (thanks @IanB2). The first comment below the article references its near neighbours. So the fuck what? It seems likely that the outcomes in Sweden are not hugely dissimilar and perhaps better than comparable economies Europe-wide.
Meanwhile children went to school, and things were less dreadful freedom-wise than many other places.
Did they escape unscathed? No they didn't but they protected their flank, as it were, in terms of many for example mental health issues.
I loved this from one of the other comments: "Especially the UK, with its high rates of poverty, widespread social deprivation and a chronically underfunded health service, is not a good comparison."
They made a choice, with - I think - eyes reasonably wide open as to the cost and benefits. Not a wrong choice and not necessarily a right choice, but a different choice. It didn't end in disaster for them. It ended (will end, when it's all over) in more deaths than they may otherwise have had, but also avoided some of the downsides of restrictions elsewhere.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
For me the cost of our response to Covid is only partially in the explicit death figures right now. We will be paying a high price for the way our health service in effect closed down to everything bar Covid (which, wrt care homes) was certainly not cost-free either.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
We also gave most of our children an education which was half baked at best for a year or so. That's going to come back to bite us.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
Am I the only one who remembers us trying all sorts of things last autumn/winter to try to find something short of national lockdown that would prevent hospitals being overwhelmed?
Rule of Six, masking, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, local lockdowns, stuff like that? It’s not like we only ever tried lockdowns. We have plenty of data on what happened with the alternative options.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
I would compare Sweden with all European countries, not just its immediate neighbours.
Might be interesting to compare to some, but it seems to me that the closest comparators would be the other Nordic states. How much in common does it have with Bulgaria, for example?
Brendan May @bmay 46 Tory MPs out of 360 have turned up to a debate on improving standards of behaviour among MPs, which is the entire problem staring us in the face right there. #TorySleaze #torybritain
I'm not watching, what's the overall attendance? Presumably better from opposition even if not 100%
Opposition benches look fairly packed from these glimpses.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
Davey under the microscope by the BBC as he has a lobbying job
Isn't that something not do with his disabled son?
The point the BBC were making is that he is a paid lobbyists and the practice should be outlawed
The BBC do seem to have their heads well down at the moment if any criticism of the Government is involved. As opposed to looking for problems elsewhere.
Am I the only one who remembers us trying all sorts of things last autumn/winter to try to find something short of national lockdown that would prevent hospitals being overwhelmed?
Rule of Six, masking, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, local lockdowns, stuff like that? It’s not like we only ever tried lockdowns. We have plenty of data on what happened with the alternative options.
All this talk of Sweden and Covid-19 and no one has posted a Alistair Hames graph with awesome trend line.
I remember when the truly gullible thought Hames was a seer.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
You have absolutely no idea about that last assertion. Scientific papers are a dime a dozen. What if Hitler had won WWII how would his son Chuck have handled Covid?
Why compare Sweden with its geographical neighbours. Show us all the graphs vs the EU 27/28.
in the great game of Godwin's Law football, you just scored a screamer from deep inside your own half. Magnificent technique! From defence to Nazigoal with one sweep of your leg.
He must have a foot like a Panzer traction engine!
Am I the only one who remembers us trying all sorts of things last autumn/winter to try to find something short of national lockdown that would prevent hospitals being overwhelmed?
Rule of Six, masking, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, local lockdowns, stuff like that? It’s not like we only ever tried lockdowns. We have plenty of data on what happened with the alternative options.
"Hospitals being overwhelmed" is lazy shorthand. According to the Guardian they have been overwhelmed or close to it every winter for the past 20 years.
I have said that we saw the pictures of Northern Italy and understandably panicked. And from that moment on everything was done in panic - from Nightingales to care homes. We didn't stop to think through the consequences or do any scenario analysis including all risk factors.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Yes, let us compare Sweden with Botswana.
The truth will out.
Sweden banned flights from outside the EU whilst we were still accepting passengers from around the world.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
You have absolutely no idea about that last assertion. Scientific papers are a dime a dozen. What if Hitler had won WWII how would his son Chuck have handled Covid?
Why compare Sweden with its geographical neighbours. Show us all the graphs vs the EU 27/28.
in the great game of Godwin's Law football, you just scored a screamer from deep inside your own half. Magnificent technique! From defence to Nazigoal with one sweep of your leg.
He must have a foot like a Panzer traction engine!
Isn't Godwin when someone brings an argument back to the nazis to prove some kind of point. Rather than a random example when it could have been anyone from Alf Ramsey to Greta Garbo.
Here's something that will change the COVID narrative - three or four western European countries are set to go back into very tough lockdown measures and close schools in the next few days.
I do wonder how much iSage will ramp up the screeching when that happens. We know the government is not going to implement plan b, c or anything else. Maybe one of them will go on hunger strike?
Davey under the microscope by the BBC as he has a lobbying job
Isn't that something not do with his disabled son?
The point the BBC were making is that he is a paid lobbyists and the practice should be outlawed
The BBC do seem to have their heads well down at the moment if any criticism of the Government is involved. As opposed to looking for problems elsewhere.
I listened to the interview and the questions were fair and I did not see political bias
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Why compare Sweden with us? Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
You have absolutely no idea about that last assertion. Scientific papers are a dime a dozen. What if Hitler had won WWII how would his son Chuck have handled Covid?
Why compare Sweden with its geographical neighbours. Show us all the graphs vs the EU 27/28.
in the great game of Godwin's Law football, you just scored a screamer from deep inside your own half. Magnificent technique! From defence to Nazigoal with one sweep of your leg.
He must have a foot like a Panzer traction engine!
Isn't Godwin when someone brings and argument back to the nazis. Rather than a random example when it could have been anyone from Alf Ramsey to Greta Garbo.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Yes, let us compare Sweden with Botswana.
The truth will out.
Sweden banned flights from outside the EU whilst we were still accepting passengers from around the world.
Let's compare it with other developed western countries. Crazy as I appreciate that sounds.
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
Great, so long as you realize they'll end up counting it. Thing is, you are your vote and your vote is you. People try and deny this but I'm not inclined to let them.
I tactical voted Labour at Holyrood this year.
You're saying that makes me a Labourite??
Yes. It counts one. So you're a Labourite until you either vote otherwise or make a solemn declaration that it was a mistake and you'll be voting otherwise next time. This stuff is very very simple. People overthink it.
The sheer political incompetence of Patergate is what disturbs me most.
Boris is meant to have decent instincts, a kind of cunning. Completely absent here. He needs much much better advisors (not Carrie) who can stand up to him. He needs a new Dom
Boris has never had decent political instincts - for the past 18 months he's usually left things until only 1 decision remains.
What he used to have were people around him who made the decisions before they got near Boris so he was presented with the final decision to announce. And Boris now seems to have lost those people.
That's what I meant, but possibly phrased it badly. He has good instincts when it comes to hiring, so he often gets good advice. That has stopped
It's our old friend hubris. Johnson's gotten away with murder so often he thinks he always can. Crank in a somewhat but not completely relevant comparison? Yes ok. Blair. Triumph in NI. The Balkans. Sierra Leone. Britain loves him. America loves him. Everybody loves him except Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn. He gets to thinking his judgment is impeccable and he can persuade anybody of anything. Iraq.
Yes, agreed
I don't think Johnson is personally corrupt - as in, a man on the take, trying to siphon off public funds, build a huge platinum castle in Dorset etc etc
That's not his style. He rides a bicycle. Financial gain does not pleasure him.
But he does like to think he can break the rules and he also finds those rules irritating and restricting - "why the F do we have to do this, can't we do it another way". He's constitutionally a rebel and he thinks he can busk his way through anything.
It brings him close to disaster but it can also brings political triumphs. At the moment he is closer to disaster than triumph
Allowing for your warm leanings towards him, yes, fair enough. I do see him as corrupt, deeply, but not particularly in the personal finances sense. I think I've worked out why you like him btw. He vanquished Remain and you find him entertaining, both of which things are very important to you. In him you have a politician who not only works over your foes but does so in a manner which elicits a chuckle. It's irresistible, I sense, and this is why it'll take a lot for you to throw him over.
Yes, he's like a forward who not only scores goals but does it elegantly, in a way that makes opponents depressed
You want that in your team even if the same player does stupid things and gets sent off or whatever
As for corruption, I sense he is amoral rather than immoral; but I know others sincerely differ, and of course amorality is not brilliant in itself
I'm trying to think of a flamboyant Geoff Boycott; someone brilliant at an individual level who lets their personal advancement get in the way of team aims. Football doesn't really work like that as much.
And then there's the question of what sort of game UK politics is- how much is it about the individual brilliance of the leader and how much is it about the effectiveness of the team? (Presidential and Mayoral systems are mainly the first, we're somewhere closer to the second, but I don't know how far.)
And then, there's the question of what we would like, what is, and what we think it is!
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
Great, so long as you realize they'll end up counting it. Thing is, you are your vote and your vote is you. People try and deny this but I'm not inclined to let them.
I tactical voted Labour at Holyrood this year.
You're saying that makes me a Labourite??
Yes. It counts one. So you're a Labourite until you either vote otherwise or make a solemn declaration that it was a mistake and you'll be voting otherwise next time. This stuff is very very simple. People overthink it.
Well it was clearly a mistake because they came third!
Now all SKS's Labour has to do is come out with and an ideology.
They have one. GTTO. It's deep, profound, sharply delineated, taught at all the best places.
I'm more scared of SKS being PM than Boris. It won't work with me.
Although, living in Scotland, I would vote Lord Satan of the Satan Party Incorporated if I thought they were the best chance to kick out an SNP Type; So I may well end up voting Labour next GE.
Great, so long as you realize they'll end up counting it. Thing is, you are your vote and your vote is you. People try and deny this but I'm not inclined to let them.
I tactical voted Labour at Holyrood this year.
You're saying that makes me a Labourite??
Wait a sec, you called me an "SNP Type" because I said I'm planning to vote SNP to get rid of my Conservative MP at the next election. So, yeah. Thems the rules.
(a) Sweden had a much worse experience than its near neighbors with similar demographics (b) that Sweden actually did end up with very similar policies to everywhere else And (c) that most Swedes feel their covid response was a relative failure
I doubt it.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions. - I wish we'd never had them. - Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine. - I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
Why compare Sweden only with its neighbours? Can we see those charts for the EU27/28 for example. And chuck in the US while you're at it.
TIA
Yes, let us compare Sweden with Botswana.
The truth will out.
Sweden banned flights from outside the EU whilst we were still accepting passengers from around the world.
Let's compare it with other developed western countries. Crazy as I appreciate that sounds.
I don't understand the objection here. You've already accepted breaking down the comparisons makes sense eg developed western countries. Is there something about breaking it down further which renders the info useless? Its possible, but I've not seen why a Scandinavia view is not reasonable too.
Comments
Just like Better Together II will be the team to defeat what is obviously your ideology.
Peter Bottomley nailing it re consultancy and outside earnings.
Could we have done the same? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. It got pretty hairy for us a couple of times and I don't know whether we could have got through without health service collapse with softer restrictions. We have more areas of high density than Sweden and I would guess (haven't checked) a less resilient health service in terms of share of peak capacity normally used.
Was it the right choice for Sweden? Maybe, depends on personal values and circumstances. Would it have been the right choice for us? I think it would not, on balance, the costs would have been too high, here. But again it's personal values and there are uncertainties. Epidemiologially speaking, it's a shame that a more comparable country to us didn't take a Swedish approach. Morally speaking, we should perhaps be glad that none did.
Edit: And before someone says Florida as a UK comparator, there are some differences, e.g. weather, lifestyle. I'm thinking more a France or Germany (even there, different population density)
Joking aside it's really only since WWII that the colours have settled down.
It's really sad that the people in Europe have been completed let down. Their leaders failed to see the bigger picture and thought that preventing one person from dying tomorrow is worthy enough to risk a lockdown in winter.
42% (+1) / 32% (0)
In combination it could be disastrous especially as we head into winter. I could see health systems buckling in these particular regions
The German biz guy is probably right. They will inevitably need more restrictions and they will have to get medieval on the vaccine refuseniks
If it is, say, Rishi, why wouldn't the public see him as a clean slate?
He surely would govern differently.
To take that example we saw the pictures from Northern Italy, panicked (fair enough) and booted out people to die in their hundreds if not thousands in care homes. Was that a good choice vs keeping people in hospital and trying to manage the capacity issues? Not sure. Was there another option? We nibbled at the Nightingale hospitals but perhaps that's where the people ejected to care homes should have gone rather than the Covid patients (what was the utilisation in the end).
Plus we then and now have the ticking time bomb of delayed treatments and mental health issues. That will play out over the next few months and years.
"Would it have been the right choice for us?" I think it might have been, on balance.
Its really depressing that the leaders across the continent didn't have the courage to ask and answer that question.
I am optimistic that in the UK that the combination of large pools of people who have had Covid already and booster jabs will see us through the winter. I think there is quite a high chance that we have reached, or will do soon, herd immunity.
That takes them right into the winter storm.
Get well soon.
Most of the Sweden discourse is:
- I don't like restrictions.
- I wish we'd never had them.
- Someone said that Sweden had no restrictions, they lived normally, and they were fine.
- I want to believe that so I'll believe it.
They ignore Tegnell, who should know fairly well, when he said, “I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown,” Tegnell said. “Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society.”
They ignore that the neighbouring countries, as well as doing far better in terms of deaths, and ranging from no worse than Sweden to far better in terms of economic impact, ended up under lower levels of restrictions (and thus greater freedoms) for the bulk of the time.
But someone somewhere says something that could come across as "Sweden was unaffected" and they're all over it because they're so desperate to believe it would all have been fine - despite the evidence of their own senses and our own experience (in a country vastly more different from Sweden than its immediate neighbours)
That little goosestep, then the wild acceleration, it looks almost inhuman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNqICEhbg84
Just pray he doesn't get injured. He could win the next World Cup for England
Speaking of which, the Greens, that reminds me, your party piece, "The Green Belt is Institutionally Racist".
There's a flaw. Or at least there might be. The Green Belt isn't really an Institution, is it? Didn't anyone raise that point?
Surely he does this for a laugh
TIA
Brendan May
@bmay
46 Tory MPs out of 360 have turned up to a debate on improving standards of behaviour among MPs, which is the entire problem staring us in the face right there.
#TorySleaze #torybritain
House prices are relative. A northern town can have an area with house prices below or near the national average but it’s still a “nice area”.
Take East Boldon in Sunderland. One of the nicer parts of Sunderland. The average house price there is around £245,000, below the national average but expensive for the area.
It's difficult, therefore, to see a route where allowing a lot more covid to run wild would have ended up with a better outcome for the health service. It's easier to see an outcome where earlier and/or harsher restrictions would have curtailed the input of hospital admissions to a greater extent and seen fewer delayed and cancelled non-covid treatments overall.
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
5m
Best Commons performance from Starmer I've seen in a long time.
Really, I think it comes down (for me) to whether we'd have seen health system carnage if we'd "done a Sweden".
If we would, then we'd have surely had the lockdown in the end anyway, just a few weeks later (so all or at least most the associated costs of that) combined with a shell-schocked health service, so the same or worse delays in treatments, mass burnout, possibly much higher health service staff deaths.
If we would have scraped through, then it becomes very interesting, doesn't it? The extra deaths traded against less school disruption, less routine treatment delays, better mental health. Hard to say and differs from person to person. Sweden much better if your business didn't go under or your cancer got diagnosed to treat; much worse if your gran, dad or brother died.
I'm not even sure how you could measure it overall, in a way that would carry majority agreement.
I think we would not have scraped through so it becomes quite an easy call for me. If I became convinced that we could have scraped through. Well, as I said, interesting. I'd maybe say the Sweden way was better.
Sweden is a Nordic country, with a similar climate, population density, level of single-occupancy of homes, and culture to its immediate neighbours.
I wouldn't compare it with Vietnam, or Brazil, or India.
Though if you want an attempt to adjust for all confounding factors with counterfactual modelling, there's a scientific paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
(Warning - conclusion is that we'd have doubled our deaths by going the Sweden route)
You want that in your team even if the same player does stupid things and gets sent off or whatever
As for corruption, I sense he is amoral rather than immoral; but I know others sincerely differ, and of course amorality is not brilliant in itself
But Rishi was a prominent Boris Backer from the start. So it would be more of a Thatcher-Major handover than May-Johnson, which really was a relaunch.
And Major was able to ditch the Poll Tax to show he was a new man. Rishi can't do that with BoJo's signature policy...
You are a paid shill
He has been charged with Misconduct In A Public Office
You're saying that makes me a Labourite??
I am not wishing away Covid I am asking whether Sweden for all its lagging behind its three nearest neighbours and no doubt share of excess deaths had its health service overwhelmed and what happened to the other treatments.
And don't worry, there'll be no edgy superwoke under Starmer. He's seeking to win from the centre. The template is NL.
Why compare Sweden with its geographical neighbours. Show us all the graphs vs the EU 27/28.
Rule of Six, masking, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, local lockdowns, stuff like that?
It’s not like we only ever tried lockdowns. We have plenty of data on what happened with the alternative options.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1457753959658033161?s=20
You've already done that by only comparing with Europe.
I remember when the truly gullible thought Hames was a seer.
He must have a foot like a Panzer traction engine!
I have said that we saw the pictures of Northern Italy and understandably panicked. And from that moment on everything was done in panic - from Nightingales to care homes. We didn't stop to think through the consequences or do any scenario analysis including all risk factors.
1. Number of single person households
and
2. Number of intergenerational households.
If you're not normalising by that, then you aren't interested in knowing the efficacy of measures, you're only interested in pushing your point.
The truth will out.
Sweden banned flights from outside the EU whilst we were still accepting passengers from around the world.
Very impressed with him, though the BBC are not continuing live coverage and have moved onto other stories
I do wonder how much iSage will ramp up the screeching when that happens. We know the government is not going to implement plan b, c or anything else. Maybe one of them will go on hunger strike?
And then there's the question of what sort of game UK politics is- how much is it about the individual brilliance of the leader and how much is it about the effectiveness of the team? (Presidential and Mayoral systems are mainly the first, we're somewhere closer to the second, but I don't know how far.)
And then, there's the question of what we would like, what is, and what we think it is!