The Saj was due to do the media round this morning.
And now he isn't...
One thing the video shows is why Allegra Stratton never took any press conferences in the White House style, as was originally intended for the briefing room. She just isn't good enough for the barefaced lies needed, for that you need a delusional true believer. Shapps seems to be the Cabinet Minister to defend the indefensible.
Though even he has ducked the gig today, apparently.
But what should Allegra have said? The nervous laugh, the awkward joke, the gawping like a stranded fish... It's because, even if there's a legal loophole, it's not one the government can use without destroying itself.
This is the way to do it:
Separately, the Department for Education confirmed a report that some staff and the then education secretary Gavin Williamson held an office party on 10 December last year, while London was in tier 2, the second-highest level of Covid restrictions.
The Mirror said Williamson gave a speech while up to two dozen staff gathered in a cafe area drinking wine. A DfE spokesperson said that on that date, “a gathering” took place of officials already present at the office “to thank those staff for their efforts during the pandemic”.
They added: “While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.”
Fair enough. Is anyone demanding that Williamson resign? No.
When is a party not a party? That is the question.
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
I don't entirely agree with your comments last night - old people are very often the parents or grandparents of the young, and the young don't wish to see them die early or suffer from this disease.
OTOH, society has to place some sort of value on the lives of the old and vulnerable. We do this for pedestrians in the setting of speed limits, for example.
How many lost educations are equivalent to one 85 year old dying a year early? A 40 year old anti-vaxxer? A runner with long Covid?
Yes this is a QUALY question - but ssssh not allowed to talk about it.
Adam Wagner @AdamWagner1 Police cars revolving lightThird set of Covid regulations today: contacts of suspected/confirmed Omicron cases must isolate regardless of age/vaccine status
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self- Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021
The Saj was due to do the media round this morning.
And now he isn't...
One thing the video shows is why Allegra Stratton never took any press conferences in the White House style, as was originally intended for the briefing room. She just isn't good enough for the barefaced lies needed, for that you need a delusional true believer. Shapps seems to be the Cabinet Minister to defend the indefensible.
Though even he has ducked the gig today, apparently.
But what should Allegra have said? The nervous laugh, the awkward joke, the gawping like a stranded fish... It's because, even if there's a legal loophole, it's not one the government can use without destroying itself.
This is the way to do it:
Separately, the Department for Education confirmed a report that some staff and the then education secretary Gavin Williamson held an office party on 10 December last year, while London was in tier 2, the second-highest level of Covid restrictions.
The Mirror said Williamson gave a speech while up to two dozen staff gathered in a cafe area drinking wine. A DfE spokesperson said that on that date, “a gathering” took place of officials already present at the office “to thank those staff for their efforts during the pandemic”.
They added: “While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.”
Fair enough. Is anyone demanding that Williamson resign? No.
The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.
Can’t blame him.
Palace coup?
I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.
This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.
Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.
But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
David, it was in *direct* contradiction of the Tier 3 rules. As confirmed by the government itself on Twitter. It isn't about "is it a risk". Its about "you can't do it but we can". The party and the lies are the same thing - dripping arrogance that it doesn't apply to them.
And you're still providing them succour.
Such a contrast with Scotland, where the equivalent excitement in the halls of power is Ms Sturgeon curling up on the sofa with the latest Booker winner.
No no, if you recall Sturgeon went to a funeral and was snapped talking to a couple of pensioners more than 2 metres away. Took her mark off because they couldn't hear her. Tories and especially Scottish Tories went mental, tweeting on party day about Sturgeon's outrageous behaviour.
Was that actually the same day as the party?! Amazing coincidence if so.
The Saj was due to do the media round this morning.
And now he isn't...
One thing the video shows is why Allegra Stratton never took any press conferences in the White House style, as was originally intended for the briefing room. She just isn't good enough for the barefaced lies needed, for that you need a delusional true believer. Shapps seems to be the Cabinet Minister to defend the indefensible.
Though even he has ducked the gig today, apparently.
But what should Allegra have said? The nervous laugh, the awkward joke, the gawping like a stranded fish... It's because, even if there's a legal loophole, it's not one the government can use without destroying itself.
This is the way to do it:
Separately, the Department for Education confirmed a report that some staff and the then education secretary Gavin Williamson held an office party on 10 December last year, while London was in tier 2, the second-highest level of Covid restrictions.
The Mirror said Williamson gave a speech while up to two dozen staff gathered in a cafe area drinking wine. A DfE spokesperson said that on that date, “a gathering” took place of officials already present at the office “to thank those staff for their efforts during the pandemic”.
They added: “While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.”
Fair enough. Is anyone demanding that Williamson resign? No.
Also, Williamson can't resign because he's been sacked already.
LauraK on R4 - Cabinet conspicuous by their absence in the media this morning unwilling to defend Downing St - Health Secretary pulled out of R4 8.10 slot.
If Johnson has lost the support of his cabinet he's done isn't he? Fingers crossed.
You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.
Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.
It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.
I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.
They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.
I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
Care to say how I've lost my 'perspective' ?
Edit: apologies. I've misread Eabhal's comment.
The guy in question is *not* an introvert, and his job involves travelling around the wider area for work. He meets lots of people, and business was booming early in lockdown.
Sorry for being unclear! Reckon his business has taken a big hit during the rear of lockdown?
I haven't chatted to him recently, as his son's in a different class this year. But he posts anti-climate change stuff as well as the anti-vax (*) stuff. Whatever rabbit hole he's dived down, it seems to be deep.
(*) I keep on wanting to type 'anti-vac', which might give the impression he likes dusty carpets (*). (**) Fnarr fnarr.
The Saj was due to do the media round this morning.
And now he isn't...
One thing the video shows is why Allegra Stratton never took any press conferences in the White House style, as was originally intended for the briefing room. She just isn't good enough for the barefaced lies needed, for that you need a delusional true believer. Shapps seems to be the Cabinet Minister to defend the indefensible.
Though even he has ducked the gig today, apparently.
But what should Allegra have said? The nervous laugh, the awkward joke, the gawping like a stranded fish... It's because, even if there's a legal loophole, it's not one the government can use without destroying itself.
This is the way to do it:
Separately, the Department for Education confirmed a report that some staff and the then education secretary Gavin Williamson held an office party on 10 December last year, while London was in tier 2, the second-highest level of Covid restrictions.
The Mirror said Williamson gave a speech while up to two dozen staff gathered in a cafe area drinking wine. A DfE spokesperson said that on that date, “a gathering” took place of officials already present at the office “to thank those staff for their efforts during the pandemic”.
They added: “While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.”
Fair enough. Is anyone demanding that Williamson resign? No.
When is a party not a party? That is the question.
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ... https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337
To some level today's focus on the party is job done because the other news stories are Afghanstan and Clause 9 of the immigration act - that allows anyone with any chance of dual nationality to lose their UK citizenship with little chance of appealing
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
"Yes Prime Minister, having consulted with our law officers I can confirm that Covid rules do not apply to Downing Street" "We're saved!!!"
I hope they do not attempt to use Crown property as a justification
That would add insult to injury
It would be the one thing worse than simply carrying on with the lies. People are furious as it is, if the government tries "the rules don't apply to us" people will be murderous.
LauraK on R4 - Cabinet conspicuous by their absence in the media this morning unwilling to defend Downing St - Health Secretary pulled out of R4 8.10 slot.
If Johnson has lost the support of his cabinet he's done isn't he? Fingers crossed.
Be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in Sunak's office this morning.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
The MPs have a duty (to their own party for one thing) to gets their pens out and start writing to the 1922. Not because of this "is it a party or not nonsense" but due to the simple fact that he is not up to it and not fit to be the leader of their party or our country. Under CP rules he could go on to win again of course, but I doubt it.
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
Would be a very British thing wouldn't it. A PM resigning over a Christmas Party.
Of course the COVID rules last year make this much much more serious.
It does amaze me how people can be so stupid.
I'm glad that Boris and his band of idiots are being hoist by their own petard. The COVID rules were stupid, cancelling Christmas last year was unnecessary and if he falls for not following his own rules then that's justice for all of us who've had to put up with this for the last two years.
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
It would be over pretty quickly though.
Very much depends on what is currently the great unknown (and unknowable at the moment). What is the typical severity of symptoms and what percentage of people (regardless of vaccination) end up being hospitalised.
If hospital numbers are high we may need to lock down because most people aren't going to get booster jabs in time.
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
The WHO reports this morning the vaccinations still protect against severe ill health from Omicron. So still no need for further lockdowns for those who have been double vaccinated and had their boosters
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
I sense that Johnson has lost it. Always dangerous to predict his demise of course, but sticking with him could mean that the pre-LP RedWallers (which exist nationwide of course) go back to their old voting habits in a more cemented-in way that they ever did before. He's fucking his party's brand up.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
Would be a very British thing wouldn't it. A PM resigning over a Christmas Party.
Of course the COVID rules last year make this much much more serious.
It does amaze me how people can be so stupid.
When you think about all the much more important things Boris Johnson has lied about and got away with, if he ends up being pushed out for lying about a wine and canapés event it would be kind of ridiculous. This was the cheese straw that broke the camel's back, I suppose.
Key points from latest Omicron immune escape study: • The % figures *do not equate to vaccine efficacy* • Two doses clearly insufficient vs Omicron. Third doses absolutely essential • 3x Pfizer looks similar to 2x Pfizer + infection • No data on severe disease
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
It would be over pretty quickly though.
Very much depends on what is currently the great unknown (and unknowable at the moment). What is the typical severity of symptoms and what percentage of people (regardless of vaccination) end up being hospitalised.
If hospital numbers are high we may need to lock down because most people aren't going to get booster jabs in time.
If the R is as high as suspected lockdown won't do it. We'd have to have a full shutdown of the economy like China. That's unlikely to get any support. Ultimately, Philip Thompson is right, people die. COVID isn't some special case disease that people shouldn't die of. The onus is on the individual to get vaccinated and boosted. If there's people too stupid to do that then it's their problem, not society's.
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
Let's see at 12 noon
Indeed. It will be a genuine must see PMQs. FWIW I think he will front this one out but the next drama will do for him and he won't lead them into the next election.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
Is there really a down-side for Boris? The man himself was not at schroedinger's party, and even if he were, it is priced in that the rules don't apply to him.
Roger Gale: PM must either come clean and apologise, or definitively deny that there was a party (in which case if he is subsequently proved wrong, he would have to resign). Paraphrased.
Roger Gale: PM must either come clean and apologise, or definitively deny that there was a party (in which case if he is subsequently proved wrong, he would have to resign). Paraphrased.
Johnson has a supercilious grin which says 'I'm Master of the Universe so I can do what I like'. Yesterday we saw the same on Allegra Stratton.
These things lodge in the memory much longer than whether there was an illicit Christmas Party and it's a look which is becoming synonymous with being a Tory.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
Would be a very British thing wouldn't it. A PM resigning over a Christmas Party.
Of course the COVID rules last year make this much much more serious.
It does amaze me how people can be so stupid.
When you think about all the much more important things Boris Johnson has lied about and got away with, if he ends up being pushed out for lying about a wine and canapés event it would be kind of ridiculous. This was the cheese straw that broke the camel's back, I suppose.
Stratton was pushed out by Carrie
Doglift organised by Carrie
It's being led by his dick that has been his downfall. Buyer's remorse indeed.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
"Destroys lifetime"
It really doesn't. It changes the way you can spend your lifetime: that does not mean it has to be 'destroyed' - unless you let it.
As I've consistently said, lockdowns are an evil. I don't want another lockdown at the moment (though that might change if the situation changes - and I hope it doesn't). But your argued approach is also an evil.
It's a case of weighing up these evils.
And saying Covid is 'some people dying from natural causes' is a bit blase. I might put it as: "Hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people dying from a largely avoidable cause."
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
Problem is at a certain point, election winners will become election losers.
For Thatcher that was the Poll Tax. For Boris, its being found out as being poor at his job.
Am I right that the media are all ignoring the horrific story about what happened in Afghanistan, to spend their efforts instead on whether it was wrong for a group of people to have a drink after work, in the office, a year ago?
Led by the likes of Kay Burley, who clearly knows a party when she sees one?
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
Is there really a down-side for Boris? The man himself was not at schroedinger's party, and even if he were, it is priced in that the rules don't apply to him.
Indeed. It just weakens the cabinet even further, as they are too weak to criticise the PM and don't know how to defend him so end up looking like plonkers.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
No. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see what a massive liability Boris now is. Leaving him in office is the surest way to sink your corrupt party. I and others want him out knowing that his Tory successor is likely to win the election.
I want him out because of right and wrong. Because of standards. Because of national embarrassment. You and the remaining Peppa apologists will literally defend anything. We understand - politics means that you have to defend the indefensible sometimes. But it doesn't mean that you are right.
Seriously, your histrionics of the last few days have been embarrassing.
Am I right that the media are all ignoring the horrific story about what happened in Afghanistan, to spend their efforts instead on whether it was wrong for a group of people to have a drink after work, in the office, a year ago?
Led by the likes of Kay Burley, who clearly knows a party when she sees one?
The Afghan story is a slow burner. Plenty of time for that later
Am I right that the media are all ignoring the horrific story about what happened in Afghanistan, to spend their efforts instead on whether it was wrong for a group of people to have a drink after work, in the office, a year ago?
Led by the likes of Kay Burley, who clearly knows a party when she sees one?
That is the fear – that Allegra's video was leaked as a dead cat to distract the media from something worse.
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
Let's see at 12 noon
He could be there a while: Sorry for the party taking place with his team in direct contradiction of the rules Sorry for hosting a party in Downing Street (even if they laughingly try to claim he wasn't there, its his property Sorry for his team laughing about it Sorry for covering it up for a year Sorry for personally lying repeatedly about it and instructing cabinet colleagues to also lie repeatedly about it
There is no chance he is going to apologise for everything. Nor does trying to apologise for a single and very narrow point and then batting the rest away going to cut it.
I'm likely to be proven wrong in a few hours, but its a fun limb to go out on. I think he'll try and bluster his way through and point to all the crimes that Starmer and his team have committed.
Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ... https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337
To some level today's focus on the party is job done because the other news stories are Afghanstan and Clause 9 of the immigration act - that allows anyone with any chance of dual nationality to lose their UK citizenship with little chance of appealing
I’m a dual citizen (UK and EU). What do I have to do to lose my UK citizenship?
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
Is there much point winning election after election if the ensuing governments are chaotic? Or is it all about those in power filling their boots? I suppose that in itself is a good enough reason if one is that way inclined.
I am not sure what is in it for you, unless you plan to climb aboard the gravy train.
- Semi-apology and deputy heads will roll 13/8 - Blather, bluster, and say something in Latin 1/2 - Order in the wine and nibbles for another business-related Downing Street leaving do 25/1
One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.
But obviously, it depends on numbers as well as severity.
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
It would be over pretty quickly though.
Very much depends on what is currently the great unknown (and unknowable at the moment). What is the typical severity of symptoms and what percentage of people (regardless of vaccination) end up being hospitalised.
If hospital numbers are high we may need to lock down because most people aren't going to get booster jabs in time.
If the R is as high as suspected lockdown won't do it. We'd have to have a full shutdown of the economy like China. That's unlikely to get any support. Ultimately, Philip Thompson is right, people die. COVID isn't some special case disease that people shouldn't die of. The onus is on the individual to get vaccinated and boosted. If there's people too stupid to do that then it's their problem, not society's.
We are not particularly worried about Covid. If the government said that masks are not mandatory anywhere then mask wearing would be around 10% and those because they thought it protected themselves not others. We all want to party/go to the footie/pub/club.
We as a society are comfortable with the level of mortality that Covid brings. Otherwise we'd all stay in and unasked mask up. We don't*.
So that leaves the NHS. Society says "we want to live with Covid" and hence it is beholden upon the government to ensure that the NHS can cope. It won't of course but it should.
*and yes there are edge cases when someone has to go out to work and lives in a multi-generational household etc, etc. But measures can be found for those people.
Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc
No
No, because it makes the story about Starmer - should he withdraw, was it inappropriate, etc. It's the job of a backbencher to do it and get suspended for 24 hours or whatever it is.
Starmer is a QC. If there is one thing he knows it is how to interrogate. The only question is whether the Speaker insists on an answer rather than some blithering whataboutery.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
"Destroys lifetime"
It really doesn't. It changes the way you can spend your lifetime: that does not mean it has to be 'destroyed' - unless you let it.
As I've consistently said, lockdowns are an evil. I don't want another lockdown at the moment (though that might change if the situation changes - and I hope it doesn't). But your argued approach is also an evil.
It's a case of weighing up these evils.
And saying Covid is 'some people dying from natural causes' is a bit blase. I might put it as: "Hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people dying from a largely avoidable cause."
Even on the mighty PB we have had several hitherto seemingly robust posters (courageously imo) admit to mental health issues. This is for sensible, analytical, geeky types. To use the internet's second favourite phrase, will no one think of the children?
How will they react to this unprecedented level of restrictions. We don't know but it seems that childrens' mental health is overall in a much worse place than it was.
How about your children. I can imagine because you are a sensible, analytical type who talks through stuff they will take their lead from you and the harm will be minimised. But harm there will be. And think of the children of people who are not as you are about it all.
The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise
I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology
Anything less would be unacceptable
I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.
So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
It will be a very interesting PMQs today
Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
On this he has no option but to apologise
Genuine question - has he ever really properly apologised for anything he's done?
Let's see at 12 noon
He could be there a while: Sorry for the party taking place with his team in direct contradiction of the rules Sorry for hosting a party in Downing Street (even if they laughingly try to claim he wasn't there, its his property Sorry for his team laughing about it Sorry for covering it up for a year Sorry for personally lying repeatedly about it and instructing cabinet colleagues to also lie repeatedly about it
There is no chance he is going to apologise for everything. Nor does trying to apologise for a single and very narrow point and then batting the rest away going to cut it.
I'm likely to be proven wrong in a few hours, but its a fun limb to go out on. I think he'll try and bluster his way through and point to all the crimes that Starmer and his team have committed.
Johnson just needs to blag it out. He does that at the sniff of any scandal and as it always works for him, why change now?
There really is nothing to see, and the opinion polls will bear this out in a few weeks.
Am I right that the media are all ignoring the horrific story about what happened in Afghanistan, to spend their efforts instead on whether it was wrong for a group of people to have a drink after work, in the office, a year ago?
Led by the likes of Kay Burley, who clearly knows a party when she sees one?
LBC are doing both equally. Half an hour of "incompetent twat government flies out animals but not people" followed by half an hour of "lying twat government rubs your face in it partying and laughing about the cover up"
Its "choose and die" time for Tories. Pick whichever story you like, its the apocalypse.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
No. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see what a massive liability Boris now is. Leaving him in office is the surest way to sink your corrupt party. I and others want him out knowing that his Tory successor is likely to win the election.
I want him out because of right and wrong. Because of standards. Because of national embarrassment. You and the remaining Peppa apologists will literally defend anything. We understand - politics means that you have to defend the indefensible sometimes. But it doesn't mean that you are right.
Seriously, your histrionics of the last few days have been embarrassing.
No. You want him out as you fear Boris as a proven election winner who built the biggest Tory coalition since Thatcher. Remove him and it is all downhill for the Tories, there is no alternative leader with Boris' charisma and appeal to the RedWall swing seats
If a Lib Dem was returned, it wouldn't surprise me if the Tories regained the seat at a General Election.
Ignoring Carswell & Reckless which were wins from nowhere but with sitting MPs, Bradford West was a win from 5th for Respect in 2012, and Leicester South and Brent East were from 3rd for the Lib Dems in 2004 and 2003.
Brent East was retained in 2005/10. Funnily enough, the vote percentages there in 2001 were very similar to those in North Shropshire in 2019 but with Labour and Tory reversed. Very different situation though, of course.
Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.
This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.
And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.
This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
59,000 cases in France. Their second worst day ever, beaten only (I think) by one anomalous surge in the First Wave
And this is BEFORE Omicron. And France has rigid vaxport rules and the rest?
Europe is going into total lockdown, with mandatory jabs
No it isn't, for Germany and Austria etc it is only vaccine passports and mandatory lockdown for the unvaccinated. Coupled with mandatory vaccinations from next year.
For the double vaccinated and those who have had their booster it is little different to here
Having spent three weeks in Germany this year, I can assure you that it is very different from here. France, not so much.
It seems pretty clear to me that the whole raft of precautions only makes a difference at best around the margins. Each variant is more transmissible and we will probably find that all the mask wearing and the rest makes little difference. Perhaps we are catching it from air droplets into our eyes, who knows?
I'm not sure what you mean by Germany is different. But living in Germany, I can say HYUFD is right (about Germany if not Austria), there is no "lockdown" here for the vaccinated or for children (at least not yet). Everything except nightclubs is open. You have to wear masks in shops and many other indoor settings. There are restrictions on numbers (eg in NRW public events maximum 5000 spectators inside, 15000 outside etc). And you have to show some kind of evidence of vaccination or recovery to get into many places (except children).
There is no hard lockdown (as other countries have had) even for unvaccinated in the sense that there is no restriction on leaving your house with no reason - but you can't get into certain kinds of places unless vaccinated or recovered (museums, theatres, swimming pools, restaurants and bars - except takeaway, Christmas markets etc).
This is true for NRW, but most Bundesländer are similar.
Austria I think is a bit different, as they did have a kind of lockdown for everyone, which ends Sunday for the vaccinated.
Germany has been less restrictive than the UK this year, apart from the last 2-3 days.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
Death is inevitable, but Covid greatly pulls that inevitable event forward to the immediate future. Again, you aren't proposing that you and yours should die in the immediate future, you are proposing that others should die in the immediate future.
Someone else's premature death may be a sacrifice you are prepared to make for your "liberty", but it may not be one that the people to die and their loved ones may want to make.
That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice.
Destroying other people's lives due to their paranoia isn't acceptable.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
Death is inevitable, but Covid greatly pulls that inevitable event forward to the immediate future. Again, you aren't proposing that you and yours should die in the immediate future, you are proposing that others should die in the immediate future.
Someone else's premature death may be a sacrifice you are prepared to make for your "liberty", but it may not be one that the people to die and their loved ones may want to make.
That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice.
Destroying other people's lives due to their paranoia isn't acceptable.
And you wish to end people's lives because they're elderly, or sick, or vulnerable. Or just unlucky.
I can't really see a good way out of this for the Tories.
What a mess.
Boris gets pushed out.
And the Tories probably face a decade or more in opposition.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
No. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see what a massive liability Boris now is. Leaving him in office is the surest way to sink your corrupt party. I and others want him out knowing that his Tory successor is likely to win the election.
I want him out because of right and wrong. Because of standards. Because of national embarrassment. You and the remaining Peppa apologists will literally defend anything. We understand - politics means that you have to defend the indefensible sometimes. But it doesn't mean that you are right.
Seriously, your histrionics of the last few days have been embarrassing.
No. You want him out as you fear Boris as a proven election winner who built the biggest Tory coalition since Thatcher. Remove him and it is all downhill for the Tories, there is no alternative leader with Boris' charisma and appeal to the RedWall swing seats
You know not everyone is like you, HYUFD. We don't all go on what is ultimately just a bottom-half-of-the-internet message board to conceal our true views and ramp for our chosen team.
It happens to be my view that it has reached a point where Sunak would give the Tories a better chance at the next General Election than Johnson, who is a joke too many people no longer find funny. Others may disagree with that, and I see the argument in some ways as he has a great deal of charisma and did make a breakthrough in the north of England in 2019.
But those of us who share my view are generally (I think) not lying about our position as some kind of pathetic attempt to make the political weather on a minority interest website. It's just our view.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
"Destroys lifetime"
It really doesn't. It changes the way you can spend your lifetime: that does not mean it has to be 'destroyed' - unless you let it.
As I've consistently said, lockdowns are an evil. I don't want another lockdown at the moment (though that might change if the situation changes - and I hope it doesn't). But your argued approach is also an evil.
It's a case of weighing up these evils.
And saying Covid is 'some people dying from natural causes' is a bit blase. I might put it as: "Hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people dying from a largely avoidable cause."
Don't be ridiculous. Saying that children have to go years without seeing or speaking to or playing with other children is monstrous, its not "changes".
Nature taking its course isn't evil, its natural. Lockdowns are unnatural and evil. Post-vaccination lockdowns are an absurd monstrous evil with no upside at all.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
Death is inevitable, but Covid greatly pulls that inevitable event forward to the immediate future. Again, you aren't proposing that you and yours should die in the immediate future, you are proposing that others should die in the immediate future.
Someone else's premature death may be a sacrifice you are prepared to make for your "liberty", but it may not be one that the people to die and their loved ones may want to make.
That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice.
Destroying other people's lives due to their paranoia isn't acceptable.
And you wish to end people's lives because they're elderly, or sick, or vulnerable. Or just unlucky.
No I don't wish to end anyone's lives.
Their lives will end though, naturally. If a virus kills them then that's nature. Blame the earth, blame nature, blame god, blame evolution but don't blame me.
Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.
This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.
And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.
This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
While we still can. And before our British passports are taken away from us on the basis that we might possibly be eligible for one somewhere else.
Roger Gale: PM must either come clean and apologise, or definitively deny that there was a party (in which case if he is subsequently proved wrong, he would have to resign). Paraphrased.
Roger Gale: PM must either come clean and apologise, or definitively deny that there was a party (in which case if he is subsequently proved wrong, he would have to resign). Paraphrased.
Johnson has a supercilious grin which says 'I'm Master of the Universe so I can do what I like'. Yesterday we saw the same on Allegra Stratton.
These things lodge in the memory much longer than whether there was an illicit Christmas Party and it's a look which is becoming synonymous with being a Tory.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
Death is inevitable, but Covid greatly pulls that inevitable event forward to the immediate future. Again, you aren't proposing that you and yours should die in the immediate future, you are proposing that others should die in the immediate future.
Someone else's premature death may be a sacrifice you are prepared to make for your "liberty", but it may not be one that the people to die and their loved ones may want to make.
That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice.
Destroying other people's lives due to their paranoia isn't acceptable.
And you wish to end people's lives because they're elderly, or sick, or vulnerable. Or just unlucky.
No I don't wish to end anyone's lives.
Their lives will end though, naturally. If a virus kills them then that's nature. Blame the earth, blame nature, blame god, blame evolution but don't blame me.
A virus promoted by human behaviour as dictated, not very well, by HMG? That's as 'natural' as a grouse moor or the Garden on the Bridge.
Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc
A dead pan, ‘I’d like to give the PM the opportunity to update the record. We know there was a party. Was the chancellor present?’.
Yesterday the Lib Dem candidate virtually blew her chances, then comes the video. Now Coral and Ladbrokes have her an evens bet to win, by the end of the day she may be the betting favourite. Then perhaps Johnson resigns by 7pm tonight under pressure from the MPS and Whips and that might well benefit the Tories again. Fun and games.
The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.
Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.
OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.
Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.
All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.
This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.
So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.
That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.
I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.
As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.
Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.
Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.
Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
"Destroys lifetime"
It really doesn't. It changes the way you can spend your lifetime: that does not mean it has to be 'destroyed' - unless you let it.
As I've consistently said, lockdowns are an evil. I don't want another lockdown at the moment (though that might change if the situation changes - and I hope it doesn't). But your argued approach is also an evil.
It's a case of weighing up these evils.
And saying Covid is 'some people dying from natural causes' is a bit blase. I might put it as: "Hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people dying from a largely avoidable cause."
Don't be ridiculous. Saying that children have to go years without seeing or speaking to or playing with other children is monstrous, its not "changes".
Nature taking its course isn't evil, its natural. Lockdowns are unnatural and evil. Post-vaccination lockdowns are an absurd monstrous evil with no upside at all.
You are the one being ridiculous.
If you are in favour of 'nature taking its course': then refuse any medicine or medical interventions, ever. Go on. No? Then that's because you're a massive hypocrite on this issue.
We have the ability to change things; to prevent people dying and getting very ill , along with the trauma that involves (and when you screech about the children, think of the trauma children face when their grandparents or even parents die of this bug).
Your inability to look beyond your own self-interest is saddening.
"That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice."
Or perhaps those who have such a desperate need to go out all the time and live their sad little lives, even if it kills many other people, are the ones who are pathetic?
Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.
This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.
And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.
This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
I think it's a weak, complacent article from Monbiot.
He had an opportunity to make an argument to win people over, and instead he repeats a list of tropes that makes his fanbase see a red mist.
Monbiot supports protests which "interfere with key infrastructure", such as powerstations and hospitals, and therefore we must assume supports suffering being inflicted on vulnerable people. That to me is unconscionable.
Of course it's right for that type of behaviour to be prohibited and soundly punished.
Unfortunately he has chosen not to engage with the reasons why IB/E2R are viewed with widespread (universal?) contempt.
He has some good questions, some wild assertions, some bad points and some missed goalposts.
Comments
Suppose the severity of Omicron is the same as Delta in every category. The NHS is not finding it easy to cope with Delta even now, with perhaps 3% of the population being infected per month.
If Omicron has an R number of 2.5 (which is starting to look conservative by comparison with some of the numbers being suggested), if nothing is done to control it, it may well infect over half of the population in 3 or 4 months - just as the original strain would have done in the Spring of 2020. The rate of infection could peak at ten times what we are seeing now with Delta.
Adam Wagner
@AdamWagner1
Police cars revolving lightThird set of Covid regulations today: contacts of suspected/confirmed Omicron cases must isolate regardless of age/vaccine status
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self- Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021
https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1338/contents/made
So the isolation rules were changed last Monday (November 28th) but little publicity has been given to the change.
https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1468494810201866244
Outstanding news management...
(*) I keep on wanting to type 'anti-vac', which might give the impression he likes dusty carpets (*).
(**) Fnarr fnarr.
"We're saved!!!"
After a week of non-answers and obfuscation, denials and dismissal, No.10 unable to make a minister available to speak to the nation this morning.
No message. No messenger. https://twitter.com/kieronishere/status/1468502564060770311/photo/1
What a mess.
That would add insult to injury
Of course the COVID rules last year make this much much more serious.
It does amaze me how people can be so stupid.
Removing proven election winners rarely works. After forcing Thatcher out the Tories lost 3 out of 4 of the next general elections, after Blair went Labour has lost 4 General elections in a row.
There is a reason non Tories want Boris out as he is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and also the leader with most appeal to the RedWall. Remove him and Starmer's job becomes easier
If hospital numbers are high we may need to lock down because most people aren't going to get booster jabs in time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59573037
• The % figures *do not equate to vaccine efficacy*
• Two doses clearly insufficient vs Omicron. Third doses absolutely essential
• 3x Pfizer looks similar to 2x Pfizer + infection
• No data on severe disease
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1468494406516887556?s=20
FWIW I think he will front this one out but the next drama will do for him and he won't lead them into the next election.
These things lodge in the memory much longer than whether there was an illicit Christmas Party and it's a look which is becoming synonymous with being a Tory.
Doglift organised by Carrie
It's being led by his dick that has been his downfall. Buyer's remorse indeed.
It really doesn't. It changes the way you can spend your lifetime: that does not mean it has to be 'destroyed' - unless you let it.
As I've consistently said, lockdowns are an evil. I don't want another lockdown at the moment (though that might change if the situation changes - and I hope it doesn't). But your argued approach is also an evil.
It's a case of weighing up these evils.
And saying Covid is 'some people dying from natural causes' is a bit blase. I might put it as: "Hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people dying from a largely avoidable cause."
For Thatcher that was the Poll Tax. For Boris, its being found out as being poor at his job.
Led by the likes of Kay Burley, who clearly knows a party when she sees one?
I want him out because of right and wrong. Because of standards. Because of national embarrassment. You and the remaining Peppa apologists will literally defend anything. We understand - politics means that you have to defend the indefensible sometimes. But it doesn't mean that you are right.
Seriously, your histrionics of the last few days have been embarrassing.
And throw out any MP, Lord, or councillor who has not been vaccinated without a bloody good reason.
NEW THREAD
And this thread has caught the
last plane out of Kabul
The Lib Dems scraped 10% in Dec 2021, Labour 22% and Tory 62%.
https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3648/election/397
If a Lib Dem was returned, it wouldn't surprise me if the Tories regained the seat at a General Election.
Sorry for the party taking place with his team in direct contradiction of the rules
Sorry for hosting a party in Downing Street (even if they laughingly try to claim he wasn't there, its his property
Sorry for his team laughing about it
Sorry for covering it up for a year
Sorry for personally lying repeatedly about it and instructing cabinet colleagues to also lie repeatedly about it
There is no chance he is going to apologise for everything. Nor does trying to apologise for a single and very narrow point and then batting the rest away going to cut it.
I'm likely to be proven wrong in a few hours, but its a fun limb to go out on. I think he'll try and bluster his way through and point to all the crimes that Starmer and his team have committed.
I am not sure what is in it for you, unless you plan to climb aboard the gravy train.
- Semi-apology and deputy heads will roll 13/8
- Blather, bluster, and say something in Latin 1/2
- Order in the wine and nibbles for another business-related Downing Street leaving do 25/1
We as a society are comfortable with the level of mortality that Covid brings. Otherwise we'd all stay in and unasked mask up. We don't*.
So that leaves the NHS. Society says "we want to live with Covid" and hence it is beholden upon the government to ensure that the NHS can cope. It won't of course but it should.
*and yes there are edge cases when someone has to go out to work and lives in a multi-generational household etc, etc. But measures can be found for those people.
Now on to more important matters. Jan and cream or cream and jam?
Keep Boris. Please.
How will they react to this unprecedented level of restrictions. We don't know but it seems that childrens' mental health is overall in a much worse place than it was.
How about your children. I can imagine because you are a sensible, analytical type who talks through stuff they will take their lead from you and the harm will be minimised. But harm there will be. And think of the children of people who are not as you are about it all.
There really is nothing to see, and the opinion polls will bear this out in a few weeks.
Its "choose and die" time for Tories. Pick whichever story you like, its the apocalypse.
Brent East was retained in 2005/10. Funnily enough, the vote percentages there in 2001 were very similar to those in North Shropshire in 2019 but with Labour and Tory reversed. Very different situation though, of course.
Destroying other people's lives due to their paranoia isn't acceptable.
It happens to be my view that it has reached a point where Sunak would give the Tories a better chance at the next General Election than Johnson, who is a joke too many people no longer find funny. Others may disagree with that, and I see the argument in some ways as he has a great deal of charisma and did make a breakthrough in the north of England in 2019.
But those of us who share my view are generally (I think) not lying about our position as some kind of pathetic attempt to make the political weather on a minority interest website. It's just our view.
Nature taking its course isn't evil, its natural. Lockdowns are unnatural and evil. Post-vaccination lockdowns are an absurd monstrous evil with no upside at all.
Their lives will end though, naturally. If a virus kills them then that's nature. Blame the earth, blame nature, blame god, blame evolution but don't blame me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nkQoSgN7k
Now Coral and Ladbrokes have her an evens bet to win, by the end of the day she may be the betting favourite.
Then perhaps Johnson resigns by 7pm tonight under pressure from the MPS and Whips and that might well benefit the Tories again.
Fun and games.
If you are in favour of 'nature taking its course': then refuse any medicine or medical interventions, ever. Go on. No? Then that's because you're a massive hypocrite on this issue.
We have the ability to change things; to prevent people dying and getting very ill , along with the trauma that involves (and when you screech about the children, think of the trauma children face when their grandparents or even parents die of this bug).
Your inability to look beyond your own self-interest is saddening.
"That's fine, the people at risk might choose to become agoraphobic and hide away from society. That's their choice."
Or perhaps those who have such a desperate need to go out all the time and live their sad little lives, even if it kills many other people, are the ones who are pathetic?
He had an opportunity to make an argument to win people over, and instead he repeats a list of tropes that makes his fanbase see a red mist.
Monbiot supports protests which "interfere with key infrastructure", such as powerstations and hospitals, and therefore we must assume supports suffering being inflicted on vulnerable people. That to me is unconscionable.
Of course it's right for that type of behaviour to be prohibited and soundly punished.
Unfortunately he has chosen not to engage with the reasons why IB/E2R are viewed with widespread (universal?) contempt.
He has some good questions, some wild assertions, some bad points and some missed goalposts.
Not good enough.