I wrote here a few months ago that I thought Johnson's best strategy was to leave with his head held high as soon as possible. He could argue that he had faced the biggest challenges since WW2 - a terminally broken Parliament, the withdrawal from the EU, and the Covid-19 pandemic - and won, while leaving the messy consequences of those victories to a more details-oriented successor of his choosing. Plus, with his reputation as a winner still mostly intact, he could still dominate the party as a kingmaker from the backbenches if he wanted, or even return as leader some day.
I think now those options have collapsed for him. Those messy consequences are piling up very quickly and are not longer deniable, so he's going to get the blame even if he resigns today; that's going to seriously damage his reputation in the long term, yet more than now. He can still probably rely on a lucrative contract with the Telegraph, but politically once he leaves Downing Street, he's finished. Yesterday's man.
So paradoxically this weakness means he's incentivised to cling on no matter what, instead of seriously looking at dignified exits. He will not resign and screw himself, he'll hold on and dare the MPs to try a VoNC - and I don't think the MPs have the balls to do that as things stand.
He had the perfect escape in the summer. Vaccination programme going well, cases low and he could played the I never recovered from long covid, i have a toddler plus a baby on the way, i just can't do it all with long covid
"Speaking at the online event, Edmunds dismissed suggestions that the Omicron variant might be “good news” if it hospitalised people at only half the rate as the Delta variant. The hope comes largely from hospital admissions in South Africa, where the population is far younger than in the UK and so less likely to experience severe Covid illness in the first place. While the average age in the UK is just over 40, it is less than 28 in South Africa.
"Edmunds said there was “not a shred of evidence” that Omicron was half as pathogenic as the Delta variant, but added that even if this were the case, it might not make the difference people hoped for. “This is a very severe setback. There is no question about that.”"
A quarter of South African adults have got HIV/AIDS as well. I'm not sure South Africa is a very good comparison to the UK. On the flip side the CDC has said it believes Omicron is milder than Delta and they're basing that on early US data which will be very high quality and analogous to the UK.
He's right tho. Logically. Even if Omicron is half as virulent as Delta (in terms of hospitalisations) it doesn't really matter because its speed of spread is so enormously greater. It doubles every 2-3 days, so you will have the same hospitalisations, just 2 days later, as Delta. And then on, and on. And it evades the vaccines, certainly to some extent, possibly to a great extent
We are in a deal of trouble. Fuck I wish it weren't so, but we are. Question is whether they even bother with lockdown in the face of this storm
It is what it is, don't forget that starting from a lower severity base means that even with lesser severity reduction by vaccines the overall vaccine efficacy might be the same for Omicron wrt severe symptoms, hospitalisation and death. Certainly with Delta two doses was enough to keep the lights on and lockdown away. Three doses may have enough efficacy to get everyone that has had all three an infection of very low severity.
I just don't trust any of the data from SA, at least not enough to apply it to the UK. We need to wait and see what the UK and US data says in two weeks.
I don't trust the data from SA either, but it is all we have. So I am treating all of it with highly interested skepticism
But this means ALL of it. Just as I don't entirely trust that "excess deaths data" I just posted - tho it is interesting and worth noting - nor do I trust the "oh it is mild" mantra coming from some hospitals
Who the F knows. But Edmunds is not an idiot - he was an early proponent of vaxxing kids when the JCVI were saying no - and if he is fearful of the worst - and it seems he is - then that is a deep concern
A lot of the "it's possibly mild" stuff is coming from early European data tracking those early Omicron infections in vaccinated people.
This could be the first endemic version of COVID, sadly for us it hit about two months before we had all of our boosters done. Though I'm still not certain it won't end up being a bad cold for people with two doses or natural immunity. That thread about antibodies speaks to what my uni friends said at the reunion dinner, the tough part of training the immune system is always version one, version two is not so bad and by version three it's got manageable symptoms.
Yes, indeed. and I hope you are right
However we have quite a lot of antivaxxers who are also vulnerable - over 50, obese, etc. Not as many as, say Germany, but enough to cause a fuck of a lot of hassle for the NHS
How many non-vaxxed are in this bracket? 5m? 3m? I remember someone crunched the numbers months ago and it was near 5m, but my memory could be faulty
If OMICRON is half as nasty as Delta (erring on the side of optimism) then given its intense infectiousness we can expect nearly everyone to get it and we can expect 5% to go to hospital (not 10% or more like Delta)
5% of 5m is 250,000 in hospital over the winter. That's a lot. How many dead? 25.000? 50.000? And in a much shorter space of time than Delta
And then there are the breakthrough infections, the kids, the possibility the therapeutics don't work, and so on
It is an unnerving prospect. I fervently pray your optimism is justified, as I say
Again, it is what it is. I'm not really sure how it plays out but Omicron means it's going to happen either way.
The smartest pharma people I know are all extremely unworried about this. They aren't on twitter looking for likes though.
"Speaking at the online event, Edmunds dismissed suggestions that the Omicron variant might be “good news” if it hospitalised people at only half the rate as the Delta variant. The hope comes largely from hospital admissions in South Africa, where the population is far younger than in the UK and so less likely to experience severe Covid illness in the first place. While the average age in the UK is just over 40, it is less than 28 in South Africa.
"Edmunds said there was “not a shred of evidence” that Omicron was half as pathogenic as the Delta variant, but added that even if this were the case, it might not make the difference people hoped for. “This is a very severe setback. There is no question about that.”"
A quarter of South African adults have got HIV/AIDS as well. I'm not sure South Africa is a very good comparison to the UK. On the flip side the CDC has said it believes Omicron is milder than Delta and they're basing that on early US data which will be very high quality and analogous to the UK.
He's right tho. Logically. Even if Omicron is half as virulent as Delta (in terms of hospitalisations) it doesn't really matter because its speed of spread is so enormously greater. It doubles every 2-3 days, so you will have the same hospitalisations, just 2 days later, as Delta. And then on, and on. And it evades the vaccines, certainly to some extent, possibly to a great extent
We are in a deal of trouble. Fuck I wish it weren't so, but we are. Question is whether they even bother with lockdown in the face of this storm
It is what it is, don't forget that starting from a lower severity base means that even with lesser severity reduction by vaccines the overall vaccine efficacy might be the same for Omicron wrt severe symptoms, hospitalisation and death. Certainly with Delta two doses was enough to keep the lights on and lockdown away. Three doses may have enough efficacy to get everyone that has had all three an infection of very low severity.
I just don't trust any of the data from SA, at least not enough to apply it to the UK. We need to wait and see what the UK and US data says in two weeks.
I don't trust the data from SA either, but it is all we have. So I am treating all of it with highly interested skepticism
But this means ALL of it. Just as I don't entirely trust that "excess deaths data" I just posted - tho it is interesting and worth noting - nor do I trust the "oh it is mild" mantra coming from some hospitals
Who the F knows. But Edmunds is not an idiot - he was an early proponent of vaxxing kids when the JCVI were saying no - and if he is fearful of the worst - and it seems he is - then that is a deep concern
A lot of the "it's possibly mild" stuff is coming from early European data tracking those early Omicron infections in vaccinated people.
This could be the first endemic version of COVID, sadly for us it hit about two months before we had all of our boosters done. Though I'm still not certain it won't end up being a bad cold for people with two doses or natural immunity. That thread about antibodies speaks to what my uni friends said at the reunion dinner, the tough part of training the immune system is always version one, version two is not so bad and by version three it's got manageable symptoms.
Yes, indeed. and I hope you are right
However we have quite a lot of antivaxxers who are also vulnerable - over 50, obese, etc. Not as many as, say Germany, but enough to cause a fuck of a lot of hassle for the NHS
How many non-vaxxed are in this bracket? 5m? 3m? I remember someone crunched the numbers months ago and it was near 5m, but my memory could be faulty
If OMICRON is half as nasty as Delta (erring on the side of optimism) then given its intense infectiousness we can expect nearly everyone to get it and we can expect 5% to go to hospital (not 10% or more like Delta)
5% of 5m is 250,000 in hospital over the winter. That's a lot. How many dead? 25.000? 50.000? And in a much shorter space of time than Delta
And then there are the breakthrough infections, the kids, the possibility the therapeutics don't work, and so on
It is an unnerving prospect. I fervently pray your optimism is justified, as I say
70% of current cases are unvaccinated.....
Is that not mostly because they are yoof, some of whom haven't even been offered a vaccine?
I'd quite like to see the vaxxed / unvaxxed case ratio split by age group. Do we have that anywhere?
I am sure a sizeable element, but the anti-vaxxers are also overwhelmingly jamming up hospital beds.
On topic, I agree that sounds very dodgy, under all parties. What is your position if you are resident in Britain and lose your citizenship? Do you need to apply for leave to remain?
Who knows? And what happens in the meantime? How do you work? Can you get health treatment? Etc.
It is an execrable piece of legislation.
This week we've had this, proposals to neuter judicial review and a Tory Minister refusing to confirm to Joanna Cherry MP that Britain would remain in the ECHR.
This country is heading to a very dark place if these proposals are not stopped.
"Speaking at the online event, Edmunds dismissed suggestions that the Omicron variant might be “good news” if it hospitalised people at only half the rate as the Delta variant. The hope comes largely from hospital admissions in South Africa, where the population is far younger than in the UK and so less likely to experience severe Covid illness in the first place. While the average age in the UK is just over 40, it is less than 28 in South Africa.
"Edmunds said there was “not a shred of evidence” that Omicron was half as pathogenic as the Delta variant, but added that even if this were the case, it might not make the difference people hoped for. “This is a very severe setback. There is no question about that.”"
A quarter of South African adults have got HIV/AIDS as well. I'm not sure South Africa is a very good comparison to the UK. On the flip side the CDC has said it believes Omicron is milder than Delta and they're basing that on early US data which will be very high quality and analogous to the UK.
He's right tho. Logically. Even if Omicron is half as virulent as Delta (in terms of hospitalisations) it doesn't really matter because its speed of spread is so enormously greater. It doubles every 2-3 days, so you will have the same hospitalisations, just 2 days later, as Delta. And then on, and on. And it evades the vaccines, certainly to some extent, possibly to a great extent
We are in a deal of trouble. Fuck I wish it weren't so, but we are. Question is whether they even bother with lockdown in the face of this storm
It is what it is, don't forget that starting from a lower severity base means that even with lesser severity reduction by vaccines the overall vaccine efficacy might be the same for Omicron wrt severe symptoms, hospitalisation and death. Certainly with Delta two doses was enough to keep the lights on and lockdown away. Three doses may have enough efficacy to get everyone that has had all three an infection of very low severity.
I just don't trust any of the data from SA, at least not enough to apply it to the UK. We need to wait and see what the UK and US data says in two weeks.
I don't trust the data from SA either, but it is all we have. So I am treating all of it with highly interested skepticism
But this means ALL of it. Just as I don't entirely trust that "excess deaths data" I just posted - tho it is interesting and worth noting - nor do I trust the "oh it is mild" mantra coming from some hospitals
Who the F knows. But Edmunds is not an idiot - he was an early proponent of vaxxing kids when the JCVI were saying no - and if he is fearful of the worst - and it seems he is - then that is a deep concern
A lot of the "it's possibly mild" stuff is coming from early European data tracking those early Omicron infections in vaccinated people.
This could be the first endemic version of COVID, sadly for us it hit about two months before we had all of our boosters done. Though I'm still not certain it won't end up being a bad cold for people with two doses or natural immunity. That thread about antibodies speaks to what my uni friends said at the reunion dinner, the tough part of training the immune system is always version one, version two is not so bad and by version three it's got manageable symptoms.
Yes, indeed. and I hope you are right
However we have quite a lot of antivaxxers who are also vulnerable - over 50, obese, etc. Not as many as, say Germany, but enough to cause a fuck of a lot of hassle for the NHS
How many non-vaxxed are in this bracket? 5m? 3m? I remember someone crunched the numbers months ago and it was near 5m, but my memory could be faulty
If OMICRON is half as nasty as Delta (erring on the side of optimism) then given its intense infectiousness we can expect nearly everyone to get it and we can expect 5% to go to hospital (not 10% or more like Delta)
5% of 5m is 250,000 in hospital over the winter. That's a lot. How many dead? 25.000? 50.000? And in a much shorter space of time than Delta
And then there are the breakthrough infections, the kids, the possibility the therapeutics don't work, and so on
It is an unnerving prospect. I fervently pray your optimism is justified, as I say
There's been 607,368 cumulative UK hospitalizations from covid:
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause negligible morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause negligible morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
One or other of two highly esteemed scientists is going to look an idiot by February
I wrote 3 tweets: "There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause 'x' morbidity and mortality over the coming months." 1. x = moderate 2. x = massive 3. x = negligible
To clarify, I don't know at this stage what the right answer to that question will be. I also didn't write those tweets to mess with anyone. Rather, I felt it may be worthwhile for us (including me) to reflect on our preconceptions before any hard data was available.
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause negligible morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
One or other of two highly esteemed scientists is going to look an idiot by February
This is very close to what my old university friends are saying. None of them seem bothered by Omicron. One of them said that on the 0-10 scale there won't be many zeroes or ones, but a lot of 2-4s and not very many 8-10s that need hospitalisation. The starting base is lower, we've been vaccinated and ~30m people in the UK have been previously infected.
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause negligible morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
One or other of two highly esteemed scientists is going to look an idiot by February
I wrote 3 tweets: "There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause 'x' morbidity and mortality over the coming months." 1. x = moderate 2. x = massive 3. x = negligible
To clarify, I don't know at this stage what the right answer to that question will be. I also didn't write those tweets to mess with anyone. Rather, I felt it may be worthwhile for us (including me) to reflect on our preconceptions before any hard data was available.
lol. So he was playing a word game? Thanks, Mister BALLOUX
Now we know that Boris is a Churchill fan but does anyone know what Boris thinks of Alanbrooke ?
Because an Alanbrooke is what Boris has needed.
Churchill said about Brooke: "When I thump the table and push my face towards him what does he do? Thumps the table harder and glares back at me. I know these Brookes – stiff-necked Ulstermen and there's no one worse to deal with than that!" It has been claimed that part of Churchill's greatness was that he appointed Brooke as CIGS and kept him for the whole war.
"If you are worried about the time [at] which the NHS might start to get very stressed, then halving the hospitalisation rate means that buys you two to three days. I think it’s really silly to suggest this is good news; it couldn’t be further from that,” he added. “This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly.”"
OK, as you were. We are fucked
That's only the case if the exponential growth is completely boundless. It isn't, even in an initially completely immune naïve population, never mind one that's had lots of jabs and millions of prior infections.
Eventually you hit the top of the case curve, and wherever that is, having hospitalisations half the rate they otherwise might be can only be good news - the NHS would have been way less stretched last year if delta had topped out at ~5k daily rather than ~10k daily infections.
"If you are worried about the time [at] which the NHS might start to get very stressed, then halving the hospitalisation rate means that buys you two to three days. I think it’s really silly to suggest this is good news; it couldn’t be further from that,” he added. “This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly.”"
OK, as you were. We are fucked
That's only the case if the exponential growth is completely boundless. It isn't, even in an initially completely immune naïve population, never mind one that's had lots of jabs and millions of prior infections.
Eventually you hit the top of the case curve, and wherever that is, having hospitalisations half the rate they otherwise might be can only be good news - the NHS would have been way less stretched last year if delta had topped out at ~5k daily rather than ~10k daily infections.
This seems to be quite a dim remark
Very very roughly, if Omicron is 4x as transmissible as Delta, and half as serious, you get twice as many hospitalisations as Delta
This is why the boffins are freaked
And now, Masterchef, wine, and sleep. Night night PB
Thanks @Cyclefree for a very informative - as usual - thread.
One quick thought. Surely the root cause of this particular issue is that the Treason statutes are not up to date to cover particularly things like IS attacks? The Government needs to find another way to punish them and / or reduce the risk to the country so it goes down the route of stripping citizenship.
Maybe the solution is to update the Treason laws and roll back the changes Labour introduced on citizenship thus to balance the issues out.
Thanks @Cyclefree for a very informative - as usual - thread.
One quick thought. Surely the root cause of this particular issue is that the Treason statutes are not up to date to cover particularly things like IS attacks? The Government needs to find another way to punish them and / or reduce the risk to the country so it goes down the route of stripping citizenship.
Maybe the solution is to update the Treason laws and roll back the changes Labour introduced on citizenship thus to balance the issues out.
The government doesn't "need" to punish people for anything. That's the job of the courts. If the government thinks particular actions should be punished by the courts, it should give the courts the power by passing legislation.
Yougov tonight still has more 2019 Tory voters going RefUK than Labour. 8% of 2019 Tories now back RefUK and 7% back Labour.
Tories still miles ahead with Leaves on 59% to 19% for Labour , 9% for RefUK and just 2% for the LDs. However with Remainers Labour are miles ahead on 49% with the Tories just 1% ahead of the LDs on 16% to 15%
It is likely the Green will take the Tonbridge seat tomorrow. They took the two county council seats in the town in May. In the current circumstances the Tories may be a bit nervous about the two Malling seats which should by rights be better for them.
"If you are worried about the time [at] which the NHS might start to get very stressed, then halving the hospitalisation rate means that buys you two to three days. I think it’s really silly to suggest this is good news; it couldn’t be further from that,” he added. “This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly.”"
OK, as you were. We are fucked
That's only the case if the exponential growth is completely boundless. It isn't, even in an initially completely immune naïve population, never mind one that's had lots of jabs and millions of prior infections.
Eventually you hit the top of the case curve, and wherever that is, having hospitalisations half the rate they otherwise might be can only be good news - the NHS would have been way less stretched last year if delta had topped out at ~5k daily rather than ~10k daily infections.
This seems to be quite a dim remark
Very very roughly, if Omicron is 4x as transmissible as Delta, and half as serious, you get twice as many hospitalisations as Delta
This is why the boffins are freaked
And now, Masterchef, wine, and sleep. Night night PB
The increased transmissibility is bad news, but only modest bad news in a UK context if there is limited or minimal immune escape, as it's mostly immunity which limits the size of the exponential growth. All that increased transmissibility does without immune escape is make it outcompete previous variants for the tiny percentage of the population which is still susceptible. Yes there are re-infections, but they don't (certainly with delta) seem to put many people in hospital - it wouldn't matter if we had a million people getting it a day if all it gives them is a dose of the sniffles (which is where we were headed with Delta).
Most of the current pants on head running round screaming by our lords and masters is because they don't know what level of immune escape it has - that is the real risk.
As of tonight, King Co Elections has just 41 valid votes left to count. A couple hundred more may come in over the next week and be counted, but will NOT change the outcome.
Beyond automatic recount range (0.5% margin) even if there were automatic recounts on recalls, which under WA state law there are not. Recall sponsors could still request - and pay for - a recount. But hard to think of why this would be likely to change the result. Election workers actually did a hand check of three ballot batches, and it matched the machine count perfectly. And recent recounts - including three for the 2021 general election - have shown little to no changes.
As of tonight, King Co Elections has just 41 valid votes left to count. A couple hundred more may come in over the next week and be counted, but will NOT change the outcome.
Beyond automatic recount range (0.5% margin) even if there were automatic recounts on recalls, which under WA state law there are not. Recall sponsors could still request - and pay for - a recount. But hard to think of why this would be likely to change the result. Election workers actually did a hand check of three ballot batches, and it matched the machine count perfectly. And recent recounts - including three for the 2021 general election - have shown little to no changes.
50.3% Yes v. 49.7% No was the Welsh devolution referendum of 1997!
Thanks @Cyclefree for a very informative - as usual - thread.
One quick thought. Surely the root cause of this particular issue is that the Treason statutes are not up to date to cover particularly things like IS attacks? The Government needs to find another way to punish them and / or reduce the risk to the country so it goes down the route of stripping citizenship.
Maybe the solution is to update the Treason laws and roll back the changes Labour introduced on citizenship thus to balance the issues out.
The government doesn't "need" to punish people for anything. That's the job of the courts. If the government thinks particular actions should be punished by the courts, it should give the courts the power by passing legislation.
There are ample offences with which the likes of Ms Begum could be charged.
The government does not need powers to deprive every Jew or Irish person living in Britain of citizenship to deal with Islamist terrorists.
As of tonight, King Co Elections has just 41 valid votes left to count. A couple hundred more may come in over the next week and be counted, but will NOT change the outcome.
Beyond automatic recount range (0.5% margin) even if there were automatic recounts on recalls, which under WA state law there are not. Recall sponsors could still request - and pay for - a recount. But hard to think of why this would be likely to change the result. Election workers actually did a hand check of three ballot batches, and it matched the machine count perfectly. And recent recounts - including three for the 2021 general election - have shown little to no changes.
I remember you mentioning that Amazon played a a role in this recall. How much influence do you think they had in the end?
As of tonight, King Co Elections has just 41 valid votes left to count. A couple hundred more may come in over the next week and be counted, but will NOT change the outcome.
Beyond automatic recount range (0.5% margin) even if there were automatic recounts on recalls, which under WA state law there are not. Recall sponsors could still request - and pay for - a recount. But hard to think of why this would be likely to change the result. Election workers actually did a hand check of three ballot batches, and it matched the machine count perfectly. And recent recounts - including three for the 2021 general election - have shown little to no changes.
I remember you mentioning that Amazon played a a role in this recall. How much influence do you think they had in the end?
Amazon played way less of a part in the recall, than they did in the 2019 election, primary and especially general. It was public backlash against their lavish anti-Sawant spending in 2019 that saved her in the general that year.
This year their role (read funding) was much more muted. Though business did spend over a million trying to get her out; she raised & spent equivalent to stay in. Her base was clearly motivated by the anti-corporate argument, as well as some swing voters with a lingering hangover from 2019.
Think the X factor this very special election, however, was reluctance of some voters who are tired of her or even opposed - folks who supported her in the past but not now - to chuck her out in the middle of a term she won fair & square. Especially as the charges against her in the recall were NOT exactly capital crimes.
As it proved, did NOT require a large number who felt this way, to swing the recall vote in her favor.
The bill is utterly toxic and shows that the Tories are absolutely not protectors of liberty.
Nor are Labour. It was New Labour which started this.
Excellent thread.
This is partly why I worry about the return of figures like Cooper. She has a strong link to some of the more authoritarian periods of New Labour, so I hope she's changed her spots. What sounded like rhetoric on trying to out-tough the Tories on the futile drugs "crackdown" earlier last week, which notably also included taking away of passports, isn't a promising start.
The combination of Johnson and Patel is the biggest danger to our freedoms since the second world war.
FPT: The Survation demographic breakdown is interesting, with the usual caution about subsamples. A big gender gap: Tories ahead by 4 with men, behind by 15 with women. A regional differential: Labour now 30 ahead in the North and 11 in the Midlands, but no progress in Scotland, where they're still stuck on 18. The Tories still miles ahead with Leave voters, but now in 3rd place behind the LibDems in London.
I've not compared with other pollsters. Is this huge gender gap normal? And why do we think it is?
Scottish electoral behaviour is once again very well covered by national opinion polls, with frequency of at least once a month. This is acceptable. There was a gap of about 2 decades after the Scotsman and Herald ceased their commissioned polling every month (not coincidental that they did not want to map the rise of the SNP).
So, sub-samples are now less important for us. However, if I was a psephologist or political punter or strategist, I’d keep a *very* close eye on sub-samples from the Midlands and North. This ride is gonna be bumpy.
"Speaking at the online event, Edmunds dismissed suggestions that the Omicron variant might be “good news” if it hospitalised people at only half the rate as the Delta variant. The hope comes largely from hospital admissions in South Africa, where the population is far younger than in the UK and so less likely to experience severe Covid illness in the first place. While the average age in the UK is just over 40, it is less than 28 in South Africa.
"Edmunds said there was “not a shred of evidence” that Omicron was half as pathogenic as the Delta variant, but added that even if this were the case, it might not make the difference people hoped for. “This is a very severe setback. There is no question about that.”"
A quarter of South African adults have got HIV/AIDS as well. I'm not sure South Africa is a very good comparison to the UK. On the flip side the CDC has said it believes Omicron is milder than Delta and they're basing that on early US data which will be very high quality and analogous to the UK.
He's right tho. Logically. Even if Omicron is half as virulent as Delta (in terms of hospitalisations) it doesn't really matter because its speed of spread is so enormously greater. It doubles every 2-3 days, so you will have the same hospitalisations, just 2 days later, as Delta. And then on, and on. And it evades the vaccines, certainly to some extent, possibly to a great extent
We are in a deal of trouble. Fuck I wish it weren't so, but we are. Question is whether they even bother with lockdown in the face of this storm
Then they should be dying in the streets in South Africa within days.
We'll see one way or another.
"As omicron cases surge, South Africa excess deaths nearly double: report – Fox News"
I can easily imagine citizenship being stripped from some of the Insulate Britain protesters. Then with the other authoritarian Bill effectively criminalising all protest it's easy to imagine citizenship being stripped from anyone who organises a protest against the government.
I think back to the way in which Johnson expelled those who wanted a bit more scrutiny of his Brexit Deal - scrutiny which on the Northern Ireland Protocol might have proved useful - and I worry about the chilling effect this could have on dissent. I might think Piers Corbyn is a berk, but I wouldn't want to see him have his citizenship stripped.
"It's time to punish Britain's five million vaccine refuseniks: They put us all at risk of more restrictions, says ANDREW NEIL. So why shouldn't we curb some of their freedoms?"
Dangerous time to take paternity leave. Reminds me of the autocrats that go on a foreign jaunt and are left with nothing but the Presidential jet thanks to a swift and bloodless coup.
Let’s see if the egos involved can manage that or if they all start shooting each other.
A quick note to say thanks for the header. This is something that has concerned me for a long time. I have foreign ancestry and my son is a dual national. @Cyclefree is exactly right to describe this as a slippery slope. I have watched as wide ranging laws with expansive powers are introduced in relation to dual nationals, with assurances that they will only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, only for their use to be normalised and used as a tool of administrative convenience by the home office.
I am almost certain that the slippery slope leads to a situation whereby removal of citizenship becomes a second punishment after a criminal offence. We have a taste of what is to come with the windrush situation - people who ARE citizens in all but the administrative formalities being deported after prison sentences. Australia has a similar policy to people convicted of crimes who were born in New Zealand; as I recall, they enact the policy retrospectively, so people who have lived law abiding lives for many years get deported for crimes that occurred years ago. Until now, this process has generally been applied to poor people who don't formalise their status; but it is a small step to expand it to all dual nationals, and all the signs are this is what the government will do.
It is enlightening as to how supposedly civilised governments can descend so far and so fast in to what is essentially barbarism. Frustrated by having to follow rulings by courts that follow on from their own inability to make coherant laws and take difficult decisions; they become obsessed with the abuse of administrative powers and the pursue a brutal policy of administrative banishment and exile through the curtailment of citizenship rights.
This should be fought hard. If necessary the gloves should come off. Threaten to use the same legislation to deport politicians with foreign ancestry in the future if they happen to be found guilty of any criminal offences. Maybe this will make them look again at what they are doing.
And to add... it is curious how the black lives matter campaign never turn their attention to issues like this. They are looking for evidence of institutional racism in the UK; but somehow manage to bypass the issue of Windrush and the deprivation of citizenship completely, in favour of going on about George Floyd, slavery carried out hundreds of years ago, and microagressions. The government will collapse at their feet, as soon as they bring the issue up; and they could claim a great victory. If only the energy and power that they have could be used to make a difference, in this respect.
And to add... it is curious how the black lives matter campaign never turn their attention to issues like this. They are looking for evidence of institutional racism in the UK; but somehow manage to bypass the issue of Windrush and the deprivation of citizenship completely, in favour of going on about George Floyd, slavery carried out hundreds of years ago, and microagressions. The government will collapse at their feet, as soon as they bring the issue up; and they could claim a great victory. If only the energy and power that they have could be used to make a difference, in this respect.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Dangerous time to take paternity leave. Reminds me of the autocrats that go on a foreign jaunt and are left with nothing but the Presidential jet thanks to a swift and bloodless coup.
Let’s see if the egos involved can manage that or if they all start shooting each other.
Or Maggie in Paris 1990.
Not that she was a foreign autocrat.
And all these ministers in Covid isolation rhyme pleasingly with John Major's dental work.
And to add... it is curious how the black lives matter campaign never turn their attention to issues like this. They are looking for evidence of institutional racism in the UK; but somehow manage to bypass the issue of Windrush and the deprivation of citizenship completely, in favour of going on about George Floyd, slavery carried out hundreds of years ago, and microagressions. The government will collapse at their feet, as soon as they bring the issue up; and they could claim a great victory. If only the energy and power that they have could be used to make a difference, in this respect.
Is ‘black lives matter’ even a thing anymore?
I'm inclined to think that BLM was always 90% about political influence, and not racism. If it was, it would have addressed all slavery and all racism, rather than just the convenient bits.
And to add... it is curious how the black lives matter campaign never turn their attention to issues like this. They are looking for evidence of institutional racism in the UK; but somehow manage to bypass the issue of Windrush and the deprivation of citizenship completely, in favour of going on about George Floyd, slavery carried out hundreds of years ago, and microagressions. The government will collapse at their feet, as soon as they bring the issue up; and they could claim a great victory. If only the energy and power that they have could be used to make a difference, in this respect.
Is ‘black lives matter’ even a thing anymore?
I'm inclined to think that BLM was always 90% about political influence, and not racism. If it was, it would have addressed all slavery and all racism, rather than just the convenient bits.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
What a ridiculous thing to be brought down on. It’s not as if he even owns the sodding flat. Hopefully he’ll be out of there soon.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
I wonder why he’s doing an AMA rather than a high profile telly interview? Better standard of questions on Reddit I suppose.
"Speaking at the online event, Edmunds dismissed suggestions that the Omicron variant might be “good news” if it hospitalised people at only half the rate as the Delta variant. The hope comes largely from hospital admissions in South Africa, where the population is far younger than in the UK and so less likely to experience severe Covid illness in the first place. While the average age in the UK is just over 40, it is less than 28 in South Africa.
"Edmunds said there was “not a shred of evidence” that Omicron was half as pathogenic as the Delta variant, but added that even if this were the case, it might not make the difference people hoped for. “This is a very severe setback. There is no question about that.”"
A quarter of South African adults have got HIV/AIDS as well. I'm not sure South Africa is a very good comparison to the UK. On the flip side the CDC has said it believes Omicron is milder than Delta and they're basing that on early US data which will be very high quality and analogous to the UK.
He's right tho. Logically. Even if Omicron is half as virulent as Delta (in terms of hospitalisations) it doesn't really matter because its speed of spread is so enormously greater. It doubles every 2-3 days, so you will have the same hospitalisations, just 2 days later, as Delta. And then on, and on. And it evades the vaccines, certainly to some extent, possibly to a great extent
We are in a deal of trouble. Fuck I wish it weren't so, but we are. Question is whether they even bother with lockdown in the face of this storm
Then they should be dying in the streets in South Africa within days.
We'll see one way or another.
"As omicron cases surge, South Africa excess deaths nearly double: report – Fox News"
Yes, I did, which is why - in my following comment, I said precisely this:
"I don't trust the data from SA either, but it is all we have. So I am treating all of it with highly interested skepticism
But this means ALL of it. Just as I don't entirely trust that "excess deaths data" I just posted - tho it is interesting and worth noting - nor do I trust the "oh it is mild" mantra coming from some hospitals"
I don't see anything in the press report to cast doubt on the reliability of the figures for excess deaths.
Looking at the plots on page 8, the rise in excess deaths is not significant among the under 60s, but is well outside the predicted bounds in the over 60s. That seems consistent with it reflecting the start of the Omicron wave. The thing that doesn't seem consistent is that the rise is not statistically significant in Gauteng province, though a rise is visible in nearly every geographical division.
It would be really remarkable if the huge increase in infections didn't produce a rise in deaths too. Even the essentially anecdotal indications of milder disease that people are (understandably) so desperate to believe don't go as far as saying it can no longer kill people.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
I wonder why he’s doing an AMA rather than a high profile telly interview? Better standard of questions on Reddit I suppose.
It’s not Reddit AIUI, it’s on his Substack paid-for newsletter. All part of building his subscriber list.
Anston and Woodsetts in Rotherham MBC the sort of small towns/large illages that form the bedrock of the red wall. V good result for the Lib Dems a few miles from me
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
I wonder why he’s doing an AMA rather than a high profile telly interview? Better standard of questions on Reddit I suppose.
You get more questions, and can therefore choose which ones you want to answer?
Edit: also, potentially a very different audience, and one that may not pay much attention to the MSM.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
Does he? If so, why has he not produced it?
Cummings is one of those very dangerous people who will warp reality to fit their ideas. Proof is not something that has ever bothered him. Indeed, his time at education where it was repeatedly demonstrated to him that he was completely wrong, suggests he considers it a nuisance.
Even being wrong isn't something that bothers him, as long as the other person gives up and stops arguing.
He's like a much ruder version of Hyufd. Or that Russian bot we had on briefly last night.
The difference is that, for reasons that continue to defy explanation, he was given considerable power.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
What a ridiculous thing to be brought down on. It’s not as if he even owns the sodding flat. Hopefully he’ll be out of there soon.
While on the face of it a party and expensive wallpaper are ludicrous ways to lose a job, they are representative of a corrupt and arrogant regime. Johnson really does think the rules don't apply to him, and neither does he distinguish between his own money and the public purse.
What do you expect from a serial adulterer who has been sacked twice from being caught in a lie? A complete amorality across the broad spectrum of life.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future.
French ? Or Cornish?
No, a country with many neighbours, and which has been at war with, and controlled, all those neighbours at one time or another...
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future.
French ? Or Cornish?
No, a country with many neighbours, and which has been at war with, and controlled, all those neighbours at one time or another...
Oh, hang on, that could be France as well.
At least we are highly unlikely to go to war with my grandchildren's 'other country'.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
From what I understand, the proposed law allows removal of citizenship if the Home Office believes you are eligible for it in another country. Does this stretch to by marriage? So yours could be in peril if the HO take a dislike to you and consider you eligible for Turkish citizenship by marriage?
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
What a ridiculous thing to be brought down on. It’s not as if he even owns the sodding flat. Hopefully he’ll be out of there soon.
While on the face of it a party and expensive wallpaper are ludicrous ways to lose a job, they are representative of a corrupt and arrogant regime. Johnson really does think the rules don't apply to him, and neither does he distinguish between his own money and the public purse.
What do you expect from a serial adulterer who has been sacked twice from being caught in a lie? A complete amorality across the broad spectrum of life.
You are not wrong. I once had a discussion with a colleague about whether politicians having affairs mattered, when so many of the general public do. He would never vote for someone who had an affair. No trust. In Johnson’s case, for all his bluff and comic act, there is a deep unpleasant core. The layers are being exposed no as never before, and his time is surely done.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
Does he? If so, why has he not produced it?
Cummings is one of those very dangerous people who will warp reality to fit their ideas. Proof is not something that has ever bothered him. Indeed, his time at education where it was repeatedly demonstrated to him that he was completely wrong, suggests he considers it a nuisance.
Even being wrong isn't something that bothers him, as long as the other person gives up and stops arguing.
He's like a much ruder version of Hyufd. Or that Russian bot we had on briefly last night.
The difference is that, for reasons that continue to defy explanation, he was given considerable power.
Having someone around who can say/shout "X is rubbish, find a better way" is useful- systems do grow comfortable with an orthodoxy which isn't necessarily for the best. Some of the windmills in education in 2010 needed tilting at. (GCSE coursework was a joke, as was the English+Maths+BTec PE curriculum.)
But you need someone above such people to say "X isn't perfect, but things are best that way because Y and Z." And Dom hasn't had one of those for ages, if ever.
As with his blogs, his ideas need an editor, and his ego is so huge that he won't have one.
In other 'oh bother' news the Guardian has discovered that the last Budget means an increase in the price of port and sherry by at least £1 a bottle. How well will that go with the Home Counties folk who drink those?
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
Does he? If so, why has he not produced it?
Cummings is one of those very dangerous people who will warp reality to fit their ideas. Proof is not something that has ever bothered him. Indeed, his time at education where it was repeatedly demonstrated to him that he was completely wrong, suggests he considers it a nuisance.
Even being wrong isn't something that bothers him, as long as the other person gives up and stops arguing.
He's like a much ruder version of Hyufd. Or that Russian bot we had on briefly last night.
The difference is that, for reasons that continue to defy explanation, he was given considerable power.
Having someone around who can say/shout "X is rubbish, find a better way" is useful- systems do grow comfortable with an orthodoxy which isn't necessarily for the best. Some of the windmills in education in 2010 needed tilting at. (GCSE coursework was a joke, as was the English+Maths+BTec PE curriculum.)
But you need someone above such people to say "X isn't perfect, but things are best that way because Y and Z." And Dom hasn't had one of those for ages, if ever.
As with his blogs, his ideas need an editor, and his ego is so huge that he won't have one.
GCSE coursework was considerably better than what has replaced it - first controlled assessments, which were a complete farce, and then reformed exam only courses which didn't even have agreed marking criteria when they were first sat.
It's been a shambles. And we've reaped the whirlwind in Covid.
And it's his fault along with Spielman's, but both are blaming other people and never admitting their own gross incompetence has caused enormous damage.
Freedman is of course a third to add, given the catastrophe of his governance reforms.
With regards to Boris and Geidtgate. In response to a question by SKS he told the house on 28th April this year that he paid for the Downing Street refurb personally.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
Does he? If so, why has he not produced it?
Cummings is one of those very dangerous people who will warp reality to fit their ideas. Proof is not something that has ever bothered him. Indeed, his time at education where it was repeatedly demonstrated to him that he was completely wrong, suggests he considers it a nuisance.
Even being wrong isn't something that bothers him, as long as the other person gives up and stops arguing.
He's like a much ruder version of Hyufd. Or that Russian bot we had on briefly last night.
The difference is that, for reasons that continue to defy explanation, he was given considerable power.
As I have said before about Cummings I have no interest in what he thinks. When he pulled the Barnard Castle stunt and then had the entire government out shilling for him, I ceased to be interested.
However - he was witness to a lot of things of interest. And from what we have seen so far has a war chest of evidence to back up what he says. So I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks about him or his time at the DfE. What is interesting is what evidence he has to back up the increasing mountain of shit that is going to swallow up the PM.
As for "why has he not presented it". I've answered that a few times already by quoting Roger Rabbit. Only do the gag when it's funny. Cum would not have sunk BJ by bitterly spewing this stuff after the sack, nor when the mood was "ah who cares about wallpaper". Same with Rishi leaking the Stratton video.
But get the timing right and it does maximum damage.
I share your doubts. I place little trust in our Home Secretary. But some questions need answering.
How may people have been deprived so far?
How many of these have been rendered stateless?
Is there an appeal which will go through the well known structure up to and including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court?
Can those courts and tribunals consider the merits of the case on the facts, and overturn the executive decision on the basis of the court's view of the facts?
Is Legal Aid available for the appeals? Are there a number of firms of solicitors willing and able to represent people in this situation effectively?
Is there so far any evidence of the use of the process in respect of people who have not behaved abominably in the eyes of the person in the street?
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
From what I understand, the proposed law allows removal of citizenship if the Home Office believes you are eligible for it in another country. Does this stretch to by marriage? So yours could be in peril if the HO take a dislike to you and consider you eligible for Turkish citizenship by marriage?
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
I don't *think* it does: but I am not a lawyer, and there's always a possibility that they could argue that.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
From what I understand, the proposed law allows removal of citizenship if the Home Office believes you are eligible for it in another country. Does this stretch to by marriage? So yours could be in peril if the HO take a dislike to you and consider you eligible for Turkish citizenship by marriage?
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
AIUI you can buy citizenship of St Lucia for $100k. Everyone with $100k is therefore eligible in a more tangible sense than Begum was with Bangladesh, where neither Bangladesh nor Begum thought she was eligible.
In other 'oh bother' news the Guardian has discovered that the last Budget means an increase in the price of port and sherry by at least £1 a bottle. How well will that go with the Home Counties folk who drink those?
"Discovered"? 'twas widely reported at the time. I do like a nice port. To be honest, though, £1 on a bottle is neither here nor there really. I don't go through bottles of it fast enough to be that concerned by the price, and I'm already willing to pay more than the cheapest available.
It will be when people notice the National Insurance increase coming out of their pay next spring that the budget will have an impact.
Excellent header, thanks for bringing light to the issue. This is the worst excess of this dangerous government, perhaps along with the illegal prorogation, yet has not received much attention at all.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
From what I understand, the proposed law allows removal of citizenship if the Home Office believes you are eligible for it in another country. Does this stretch to by marriage? So yours could be in peril if the HO take a dislike to you and consider you eligible for Turkish citizenship by marriage?
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
AIUI you can buy citizenship of St Lucia for $100k. Everyone with $100k is therefore eligible in a more tangible sense than Begum was with Bangladesh, where neither Bangladesh nor Begum thought she was eligible.
The only criterion for citizenship of Svalbard, is being there.
I agree with Mr darkage, and, of course, with Ms Cyclefree. So far as I can ascertain, the vast majority of my, and my wife's ancestors were in these islands when the Normans came, and many, possibly most, of them when the Romans did. However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay. It's shameful.
Mrs J is a dual citizen, and from a country that it is possible we might have aggro with in the future. She is (IMV) a good citizen, holds down a good job, and contributes positively to society. Yet in the back of her mind, she knows that she will never quite 'belong' : and laws like this accentuate that feeling.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
From what I understand, the proposed law allows removal of citizenship if the Home Office believes you are eligible for it in another country. Does this stretch to by marriage? So yours could be in peril if the HO take a dislike to you and consider you eligible for Turkish citizenship by marriage?
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
AIUI you can buy citizenship of St Lucia for $100k. Everyone with $100k is therefore eligible in a more tangible sense than Begum was with Bangladesh, where neither Bangladesh nor Begum thought she was eligible.
The only criterion for citizenship of Svalbard, is being there.
A quick note to say thanks for the header. This is something that has concerned me for a long time. I have foreign ancestry and my son is a dual national. @Cyclefree is exactly right to describe this as a slippery slope. I have watched as wide ranging laws with expansive powers are introduced in relation to dual nationals, with assurances that they will only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, only for their use to be normalised and used as a tool of administrative convenience by the home office.
I am almost certain that the slippery slope leads to a situation whereby removal of citizenship becomes a second punishment after a criminal offence... (snipped for brevity)
This should be fought hard. If necessary the gloves should come off. Threaten to use the same legislation to deport politicians with foreign ancestry in the future if they happen to be found guilty of any criminal offences. Maybe this will make them look again at what they are doing.
I'm glad to have something on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. Does anyone other than Pritti Patel, and a few instinctive authoritarians actually want this ? And if not, why have MPs allowed the legislation proceed almost to the brink of being enacted ?
The broad power to deprive nearly a tenth of the population of their citizenship should not be available, still less to a single politician. This legislation goes even further, and effectively allows this, or a future Home Secretary to destroy any of those citizen's lives without notice.
In other 'oh bother' news the Guardian has discovered that the last Budget means an increase in the price of port and sherry by at least £1 a bottle. How well will that go with the Home Counties folk who drink those?
"Discovered"? 'twas widely reported at the time. I do like a nice port. To be honest, though, £1 on a bottle is neither here nor there really. I don't go through bottles of it fast enough to be that concerned by the price, and I'm already willing to pay more than the cheapest available.
It will be when people notice the National Insurance increase coming out of their pay next spring that the budget will have an impact.
A £10 bottle will be sold over the year in a price range from £6 or £7 discounted to £14 in a local supermarket, so for most of those where £1 makes a real difference, it is fairly easy to still pay the same, or less, by better planning.
A quick note to say thanks for the header. This is something that has concerned me for a long time. I have foreign ancestry and my son is a dual national. @Cyclefree is exactly right to describe this as a slippery slope. I have watched as wide ranging laws with expansive powers are introduced in relation to dual nationals, with assurances that they will only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, only for their use to be normalised and used as a tool of administrative convenience by the home office.
I am almost certain that the slippery slope leads to a situation whereby removal of citizenship becomes a second punishment after a criminal offence... (snipped for brevity)
This should be fought hard. If necessary the gloves should come off. Threaten to use the same legislation to deport politicians with foreign ancestry in the future if they happen to be found guilty of any criminal offences. Maybe this will make them look again at what they are doing.
I'm glad to have something on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. Does anyone other than Pritti Patel, and a few instinctive authoritarians actually want this ? And if not, why have MPs allowed the legislation proceed almost to the brink of being enacted ?
The broad power to deprive nearly a tenth of the population of their citizenship should not be available, still less to a single politician. This legislation goes even further, and effectively allows this, or a future Home Secretary to destroy any of those citizen's lives without notice.
The broad power is already there, it has been there since Blair's days at the least. Just ask Begum.
This is the slippery slope part of Cyclefree's metaphor, we were down this slope decades ago. As far as I can tell this isn't being extended to anyone that wasn't already covered and instead the key change is on how people get notified when it happens not who it can happen to or why it can happen.
I share your doubts. I place little trust in our Home Secretary. But some questions need answering.
How may people have been deprived so far?
How many of these have been rendered stateless?
Is there an appeal which will go through the well known structure up to and including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court?
Can those courts and tribunals consider the merits of the case on the facts, and overturn the executive decision on the basis of the court's view of the facts?
Is Legal Aid available for the appeals? Are there a number of firms of solicitors willing and able to represent people in this situation effectively?
Is there so far any evidence of the use of the process in respect of people who have not behaved abominably in the eyes of the person in the street?
No, they really don't need answering. Cyclefree's LBJ quote puts it perfectly:
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
Even if the government, and all future governments, were expected to exercise the powers with great caution and reasonableness, they should not have those powers when they are unnecessary and dangerous.
Morning everyone. It seems my ban has been lifted, but it seems isam's hasn't yet. If he was banned for defending me then I feel bad about that.
Thank you for nice comments people made yesterday following my banning. I certainly was never expecting to be banned and I'm glad its been lifted but I hope it is for @isam ASAP too.
I share your doubts. I place little trust in our Home Secretary. But some questions need answering.
How may people have been deprived so far?
How many of these have been rendered stateless?
Is there an appeal which will go through the well known structure up to and including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court?
Can those courts and tribunals consider the merits of the case on the facts, and overturn the executive decision on the basis of the court's view of the facts?
Is Legal Aid available for the appeals? Are there a number of firms of solicitors willing and able to represent people in this situation effectively?
Is there so far any evidence of the use of the process in respect of people who have not behaved abominably in the eyes of the person in the street?
No, they really don't need answering. Cyclefree's LBJ quote puts it perfectly:
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
Even if the government, and all future governments, were expected to exercise the powers with great caution and reasonableness, they should not have those powers when they are unnecessary and dangerous.
But they already have those powers. They've had those powers for decades.
We should be reversing those powers, but that's not been on the agenda for anyone.
Good header, and fair to point out new Labour's role in this.
It would however be a big mistake for Labour to make this a focus of their campaigning. The Tories would love to get the chance to talk tough on terror.
I'm glad to have something on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. Does anyone other than Pritti Patel, and a few instinctive authoritarians actually want this ? And if not, why have MPs allowed the legislation proceed almost to the brink of being enacted ?
I expect it depends how you poll it but the British voters hate freedom and aren't interested in theoretical concerns about how powers can be misused. If they think it's aimed at arabs and wrong-uns I expect they'll be in favour.
I share your doubts. I place little trust in our Home Secretary. But some questions need answering.
How may people have been deprived so far?
How many of these have been rendered stateless?
Is there an appeal which will go through the well known structure up to and including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court?
Can those courts and tribunals consider the merits of the case on the facts, and overturn the executive decision on the basis of the court's view of the facts?
Is Legal Aid available for the appeals? Are there a number of firms of solicitors willing and able to represent people in this situation effectively?
Is there so far any evidence of the use of the process in respect of people who have not behaved abominably in the eyes of the person in the street?
No, they really don't need answering. Cyclefree's LBJ quote puts it perfectly:
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
Even if the government, and all future governments, were expected to exercise the powers with great caution and reasonableness, they should not have those powers when they are unnecessary and dangerous.
Of course there is a little something in this argument for having limited information about an issue and declining to answer questions; But not much. Just as red lights flash when the Home Secretary doesn't want to answer questions (ie all the time), amber lights flash when her critics do the same.
A quick note to say thanks for the header. This is something that has concerned me for a long time. I have foreign ancestry and my son is a dual national. @Cyclefree is exactly right to describe this as a slippery slope. I have watched as wide ranging laws with expansive powers are introduced in relation to dual nationals, with assurances that they will only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, only for their use to be normalised and used as a tool of administrative convenience by the home office.
I am almost certain that the slippery slope leads to a situation whereby removal of citizenship becomes a second punishment after a criminal offence... (snipped for brevity)
This should be fought hard. If necessary the gloves should come off. Threaten to use the same legislation to deport politicians with foreign ancestry in the future if they happen to be found guilty of any criminal offences. Maybe this will make them look again at what they are doing.
I'm glad to have something on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. Does anyone other than Pritti Patel, and a few instinctive authoritarians actually want this ? And if not, why have MPs allowed the legislation proceed almost to the brink of being enacted ?
The broad power to deprive nearly a tenth of the population of their citizenship should not be available, still less to a single politician. This legislation goes even further, and effectively allows this, or a future Home Secretary to destroy any of those citizen's lives without notice.
The broad power is already there, it has been there since Blair's days at the least. Just ask Begum.
This is the slippery slope part of Cyclefree's metaphor, we were down this slope decades ago. As far as I can tell this isn't being extended to anyone that wasn't already covered and instead the key change is on how people get notified when it happens not who it can happen to or why it can happen.
Good old New Labour.
Another piece of evidence showing that, while Blair was a tactical genius, he was a strategic disaster when it came to the long term implications of his actions.
Comments
BT support not around at this hour .. (Other hqlf wfh overnight)
The smartest pharma people I know are all extremely unworried about this. They aren't on twitter looking for likes though.
It is an execrable piece of legislation.
This week we've had this, proposals to neuter judicial review and a Tory Minister refusing to confirm to Joanna Cherry MP that Britain would remain in the ECHR.
This country is heading to a very dark place if these proposals are not stopped.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
There's been 10,660,981 cumulative UK cases - in reality many more from the initial lack of testing and asymptomatic cases.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
So that's a 6% hospitalization rate, in reality a lot less.
In the last six months there's been approximately 6 million new cases (in reality a lot more) and about 140k hospitalisations.
That would be around a 2% hospitalisation rate.
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause negligible morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1469083219698110464?s=20
One or other of two highly esteemed scientists is going to look an idiot by February
"There is still considerable uncertainty about the Omicron variant, in particular about its intrinsic virulence, but we can expect it to cause 'x' morbidity and mortality over the coming months."
1. x = moderate
2. x = massive
3. x = negligible
To clarify, I don't know at this stage what the right answer to that question will be. I also didn't write those tweets to mess with anyone. Rather, I felt it may be worthwhile for us (including me) to reflect on our preconceptions before any hard data was available.
Because an Alanbrooke is what Boris has needed.
Churchill said about Brooke: "When I thump the table and push my face towards him what does he do? Thumps the table harder and glares back at me. I know these Brookes – stiff-necked Ulstermen and there's no one worse to deal with than that!" It has been claimed that part of Churchill's greatness was that he appointed Brooke as CIGS and kept him for the whole war.
Eventually you hit the top of the case curve, and wherever that is, having hospitalisations half the rate they otherwise might be can only be good news - the NHS would have been way less stretched last year if delta had topped out at ~5k daily rather than ~10k daily infections.
Very very roughly, if Omicron is 4x as transmissible as Delta, and half as serious, you get twice as many hospitalisations as Delta
This is why the boffins are freaked
And now, Masterchef, wine, and sleep. Night night PB
One quick thought. Surely the root cause of this particular issue is that the Treason statutes are not up to date to cover particularly things like IS attacks? The Government needs to find another way to punish them and / or reduce the risk to the country so it goes down the route of stripping citizenship.
Maybe the solution is to update the Treason laws and roll back the changes Labour introduced on citizenship thus to balance the issues out.
If the government thinks particular actions should be punished by the courts, it should give the courts the power by passing legislation.
Most of the current pants on head running round screaming by our lords and masters is because they don't know what level of immune escape it has - that is the real risk.
Thursday Vote Count Update
Counted = 40,629 (50.3%)
Recall Yes = 20,183 (49.7%)
Recall No = 20,415 (50.3%)
margin = - 232 (-0.6%)
As of tonight, King Co Elections has just 41 valid votes left to count. A couple hundred more may come in over the next week and be counted, but will NOT change the outcome.
Beyond automatic recount range (0.5% margin) even if there were automatic recounts on recalls, which under WA state law there are not. Recall sponsors could still request - and pay for - a recount. But hard to think of why this would be likely to change the result. Election workers actually did a hand check of three ballot batches, and it matched the machine count perfectly. And recent recounts - including three for the 2021 general election - have shown little to no changes.
The government does not need powers to deprive every Jew or Irish person living in Britain of citizenship to deal with Islamist terrorists.
This year their role (read funding) was much more muted. Though business did spend over a million trying to get her out; she raised & spent equivalent to stay in. Her base was clearly motivated by the anti-corporate argument, as well as some swing voters with a lingering hangover from 2019.
Think the X factor this very special election, however, was reluctance of some voters who are tired of her or even opposed - folks who supported her in the past but not now - to chuck her out in the middle of a term she won fair & square. Especially as the charges against her in the recall were NOT exactly capital crimes.
As it proved, did NOT require a large number who felt this way, to swing the recall vote in her favor.
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1469082746089885698?s=21
This is partly why I worry about the return of figures like Cooper. She has a strong link to some of the more authoritarian periods of New Labour, so I hope she's changed her spots. What sounded like rhetoric on trying to out-tough the Tories on the futile drugs "crackdown" earlier last week, which notably also included taking away of passports, isn't a promising start.
The combination of Johnson and Patel is the biggest danger to our freedoms since the second world war.
So, sub-samples are now less important for us. However, if I was a psephologist or political punter or strategist, I’d keep a *very* close eye on sub-samples from the Midlands and North. This ride is gonna be bumpy.
I think back to the way in which Johnson expelled those who wanted a bit more scrutiny of his Brexit Deal - scrutiny which on the Northern Ireland Protocol might have proved useful - and I worry about the chilling effect this could have on dissent. I might think Piers Corbyn is a berk, but I wouldn't want to see him have his citizenship stripped.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10294225/Its-time-punish-Britains-five-million-vaccine-refuseniks-says-ANDREW-NEIL.html
Let’s see if the egos involved can manage that or if they all start shooting each other.
I am almost certain that the slippery slope leads to a situation whereby removal of citizenship becomes a second punishment after a criminal offence. We have a taste of what is to come with the windrush situation - people who ARE citizens in all but the administrative formalities being deported after prison sentences. Australia has a similar policy to people convicted of crimes who were born in New Zealand; as I recall, they enact the policy retrospectively, so people who have lived law abiding lives for many years get deported for crimes that occurred years ago. Until now, this process has generally been applied to poor people who don't formalise their status; but it is a small step to expand it to all dual nationals, and all the signs are this is what the government will do.
It is enlightening as to how supposedly civilised governments can descend so far and so fast in to what is essentially barbarism. Frustrated by having to follow rulings by courts that follow on from their own inability to make coherant laws and take difficult decisions; they become obsessed with the abuse of administrative powers and the pursue a brutal policy of administrative banishment and exile through the curtailment of citizenship rights.
This should be fought hard. If necessary the gloves should come off. Threaten to use the same legislation to deport politicians with foreign ancestry in the future if they happen to be found guilty of any criminal offences. Maybe this will make them look again at what they are doing.
However, the world is a wider place now and I have grandchildren with dual nationality. I sincerely hope, of course, that they won't get into any sort of bother which could lead them to having their British passports removed; however, I really, really oppose even the possibility, without due trial and an open process. As Mr D points out, the treatment of our Windrush neighbours does not create confidence; there appears to be some malignity in the Home Office which takes the view that anyone who doesn't 'look the part' should be expelled unless they can find a reason to stay.
It's shameful.
Not that she was a foreign autocrat.
And all these ministers in Covid isolation rhyme pleasingly with John Major's dental work.
Put it in the contract that no footage be retained by anyone, subject to a stiff liability. Not difficult.
We need a PM who can run an administration.
Excellent header, @Cyclefree .
There'll be another bus along in a minute.
There'll be another bus along in a minute.
Mr. W, controversially low percentage.
That isn't an error. That's a lie. He knew that was not true. And openly lied about it.
I'm losing track. Is that two or three clear cut breaches of the ministerial code we can prove over the same issue?
If Geidt quits saying he has been misled then this could be over quickly. No Prime Minister can survive endless "Did you Lie Prime Minister" questions when the answer is so clearly yes, repeatedly, to cover up vast sums of dark money being spent on wallpaper so NutNut and Tory staffers could have illegal parties.
And then we have DomCum doing his "ask me anything" show at lunchtime. Who knows what he will spew out. And the problem for the Tories isn't that you can dismiss him, can't be trusted over Barnard Castle because he always has proof...
The official report of excess deaths is available online:
https://www.samrc.ac.za/sites/default/files/files/2021-12-08/weekly4Dec2021.pdf
Looking at the plots on page 8, the rise in excess deaths is not significant among the under 60s, but is well outside the predicted bounds in the over 60s. That seems consistent with it reflecting the start of the Omicron wave. The thing that doesn't seem consistent is that the rise is not statistically significant in Gauteng province, though a rise is visible in nearly every geographical division.
It would be really remarkable if the huge increase in infections didn't produce a rise in deaths too. Even the essentially anecdotal indications of milder disease that people are (understandably) so desperate to believe don't go as far as saying it can no longer kill people.
Millions of good people, who have lived and worked in this country for decades, or even their whole lives, will be feeling concern over this. The law may be framed as narrow in scope, but as I see it, the opportunity for someone of ill intent to use it for evil is wide.
BTW, as I've said passim, she's never really encountered racism in this country - except for one possible time in London when she was spat at: but she has no idea whether that was due to race or some other weird thing. Contrast with Germany, where on our first night in the country she was subjected to racial abuse from a group of men whilst staying in a hotel.
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/ask-me-anything-friday-10th
Edit: also, potentially a very different audience, and one that may not pay much attention to the MSM.
Cummings is one of those very dangerous people who will warp reality to fit their ideas. Proof is not something that has ever bothered him. Indeed, his time at education where it was repeatedly demonstrated to him that he was completely wrong, suggests he considers it a nuisance.
Even being wrong isn't something that bothers him, as long as the other person gives up and stops arguing.
He's like a much ruder version of Hyufd. Or that Russian bot we had on briefly last night.
The difference is that, for reasons that continue to defy explanation, he was given considerable power.
What do you expect from a serial adulterer who has been sacked twice from being caught in a lie? A complete amorality across the broad spectrum of life.
Oh, hang on, that could be France as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6gpPJwYIY
This considerably expands the numbers who could be deprived of their citizenship at the whim of Priti.
But you need someone above such people to say "X isn't perfect, but things are best that way because Y and Z." And Dom hasn't had one of those for ages, if ever.
As with his blogs, his ideas need an editor, and his ego is so huge that he won't have one.
How well will that go with the Home Counties folk who drink those?
It's been a shambles. And we've reaped the whirlwind in Covid.
And it's his fault along with Spielman's, but both are blaming other people and never admitting their own gross incompetence has caused enormous damage.
Freedman is of course a third to add, given the catastrophe of his governance reforms.
However - he was witness to a lot of things of interest. And from what we have seen so far has a war chest of evidence to back up what he says. So I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks about him or his time at the DfE. What is interesting is what evidence he has to back up the increasing mountain of shit that is going to swallow up the PM.
As for "why has he not presented it". I've answered that a few times already by quoting Roger Rabbit. Only do the gag when it's funny. Cum would not have sunk BJ by bitterly spewing this stuff after the sack, nor when the mood was "ah who cares about wallpaper". Same with Rishi leaking the Stratton video.
But get the timing right and it does maximum damage.
I share your doubts. I place little trust in our Home Secretary. But some questions need answering.
How may people have been deprived so far?
How many of these have been rendered stateless?
Is there an appeal which will go through the well known structure up to and including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court?
Can those courts and tribunals consider the merits of the case on the facts, and overturn the executive decision on the basis of the court's view of the facts?
Is Legal Aid available for the appeals? Are there a number of firms of solicitors willing and able to represent people in this situation effectively?
Is there so far any evidence of the use of the process in respect of people who have not behaved abominably in the eyes of the person in the street?
It's sh*t.
It will be when people notice the National Insurance increase coming out of their pay next spring that the budget will have an impact.
And if not, why have MPs allowed the legislation proceed almost to the brink of being enacted ?
The broad power to deprive nearly a tenth of the population of their citizenship should not be available, still less to a single politician.
This legislation goes even further, and effectively allows this, or a future Home Secretary to destroy any of those citizen's lives without notice.
This is the slippery slope part of Cyclefree's metaphor, we were down this slope decades ago. As far as I can tell this isn't being extended to anyone that wasn't already covered and instead the key change is on how people get notified when it happens not who it can happen to or why it can happen.
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
Even if the government, and all future governments, were expected to exercise the powers with great caution and reasonableness, they should not have those powers when they are unnecessary and dangerous.
Thank you for nice comments people made yesterday following my banning. I certainly was never expecting to be banned and I'm glad its been lifted but I hope it is for @isam ASAP too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59596267
We should be reversing those powers, but that's not been on the agenda for anyone.
It would however be a big mistake for Labour to make this a focus of their campaigning. The Tories would love to get the chance to talk tough on terror.
Another piece of evidence showing that, while Blair was a tactical genius, he was a strategic disaster when it came to the long term implications of his actions.