Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Where the Slippery Slope Leads – politicalbetting.com

1356789

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    edited December 2021
    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree.

    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?

    Impossible to answer most of those questions as the legislation is yet to be passed. And note we're talking about the potential for future abuse.

    The no notice provision (note also the retrospective application of this) will make accessing the courts much more difficult.
    The broad nature of the grounds for removal of citizenship also make challenge harder, since courts will give great weight to the Home Secretary's judgment on what is in "conducive to the public good".
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    The No 10 Christmas party was planned for three weeks with invitations sent to officials and advisers on WhatsApp while the UK was in full lockdown https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-street-christmas-party-planned-for-weeks-sqjcxnhwq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1639117298
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    It appears some in No10, maybe even BoZo himself, have failed to comply with FOI legislation regarding his whatsapp messages.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    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 have been there - can I claim dual citizenship though it is very cold and remote but at least I saw a polar bear in its natural habitat
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree.

    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.

    I am not proposing to take away peoples citizenship without a fair and informed trial. She is. Not sure why I should have the same burden of answering questions here.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    LauraK: Doesn't think Lord G has yet looked at the EC report and is not about to resign. But "a very tricky position indeed".
  • theProletheProle Posts: 948

    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.
    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    I wouldn't be shocked if the current lockdown lite was her brainwave too, to try and move the media story on.
    I think this may well be what finishes him - Tory MPs whose patience was wearing thin anyway aren't seeing the funny side of his nuking the country to change some bad headlines.

    She's done a lot of damage in other areas too - much of the economic self-harm in the name of greenery is her agenda too. Tory MPs know that too.

    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years, and actually been quite a good prime minister - it's all gone wrong for him since he decided to prioritise the desires of one of the nastiest bit of work to ever get near power.

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement), but he sided with Carrie every time.

    The inevitable divorce proceedings once they are out of no10 should provide some light entertainment anyway...

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    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 have been there - can I claim dual citizenship though it is very cold and remote but at least I saw a polar bear in its natural habitat
    I keep meaning to go
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153
    edited December 2021
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thank-you @Cyclefree for this thread.

    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.
    As you say, the issue is not about party politics.
    Though some serious noise about this from any of the parties might incline me more favourably towards them.
    SNP don't like it at all.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19766875.snp-warn-nationality-borders-bill-will-destroy-lives-vulnerable-people/

    'Speaking ahead of the debate on Tuesday, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson Stuart McDonald MP said: “This hateful anti-refugee bill, if passed, will see people seeking asylum criminalised with an offence punishable with up to 4 years in prison – whether they have fled the Taliban in Afghanistan, sought refuge from the war in Syria, or escaped religious or any other type of persecution. [...]

    "It is also a full-frontal assault on the UN Refugee Convention and breaches the UK’s international obligations.

    "This really is one of the cruellest policies I’ve seen come out of the Home Office.

    “The SNP has opposed this bill every step of the way - but the Tories, including those representing Scotland, let humanity down by voting against it.

    “By sticking by this bill, they are defending criminalising torture victims, victims of war crimes, persecuted Christian converts and other refugees for seeking our protection.

    “Let me be clear - none of this is happening in Scotland’s name.”'
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,465

    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.

    Welcome back. I didn't see what all (3?) the bans were about yesterday as I made limited use of PB, but I did like one of the supporting comments for you. Must have been a hell of a discussion yesterday. Treat it as a badge of honour.
  • Scott_xP said:

    The No 10 Christmas party was planned for three weeks with invitations sent to officials and advisers on WhatsApp while the UK was in full lockdown https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-street-christmas-party-planned-for-weeks-sqjcxnhwq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1639117298

    If Boris is in any of those groups, he gone.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    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 have been there - can I claim dual citizenship though it is very cold and remote but at least I saw a polar bear in its natural habitat
    I keep meaning to go
    It is a very interesting destination and was part of a cruise we took to the Arctic
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree.

    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.

    I am not proposing to take away peoples citizenship without a fair and informed trial. She is. Not sure why I should have the same burden of answering questions here.
    Lets get facts right, she's not proposing it either. Its the law already. Thank Tony Blair for that.

    There can be an appeal after the fact, as per Begum, but its already the law.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    Yes - good that there is agreement on this issue, even from unexpected quarters.

    The laws are popular with the native born majority. Look at France. It is Zemmours policy to deport dual nationals who have committed a criminal offence and this has been copied by the republicans.

    It is essentially an assault on minority rights. Ironic given the societal obsession with preserving other minority rights. Sorry to bring this back to 'black lives matter' and other 'woke' campaigns, but their lack of interest in this just seems to prove @MattW's suggestion that these campaigns are about politics and not justice, which I completely agree with.

    The irony is that a more honest policy would be to stop dual nationality. Make people choose between nationalities not have the absurd situation where people can come from afghanistan, gain asylum, then return to afghanistan and choose to live under the taliban whilst remaining a British citizen with dual nationality. But that would be regarded as a genuinely unpopular and illiberal policy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Musing over @Cyclefree's excellent header and the similar authoritarian criminalisation of even peaceful protest. Add in the widespread support for harsh measures on antivaxxers and restrictions on social activity and it leads to a pretty inescapable conclusion.

    This is not a country that values individual freedom or liberty. It likes the smack of firm government, though obviously aimed at "others".
  • Singing in supermarkets has made it into the official mask guidance after the media questions yesterday.....if only they were so quick to respond on matters of citizenship or the RNLI.

    "There is a reasonable excuse for someone to remove a face covering when it is reasonably necessary for them to sing, for example, if they are singing as part of a choir, or during a service, rehearsal or for a performance.

    This does not extend to circumstances where it is not reasonably necessary to sing. For example, it may not be reasonably necessary for someone to sing whilst shopping, on public transport, or whilst in an in-scope setting such as a cinema, theatre or library."

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own
  • Scott_xP said:

    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

    The problem with the "BoZo should have quit" theories is that he doesn't want to.

    He wants to live in the most exclusive address in the country with ludicrous wallpaper.

    He wants the title, the pomp, the ceremony.

    He wants the job.

    He just doesn't want to do the work.
    He also doesn't want the questioning.

    But to have the perks and glory without the work and scrutiny is to want to have your cake and eat it.

    And for all BoJo wishes it, that doesn't work.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    Foxy said:

    Musing over @Cyclefree's excellent header and the similar authoritarian criminalisation of even peaceful protest. Add in the widespread support for harsh measures on antivaxxers and restrictions on social activity and it leads to a pretty inescapable conclusion.

    This is not a country that values individual freedom or liberty. It likes the smack of firm government, though obviously aimed at "others".

    The assault on individual freedom goes even further than that. Freedom of speech is dead. The criminalisation of hate. The expansive and easy to manipuilate definition of 'abuse' and its criminalisation. Its mostly been done in the last 2 decades.

    When we think of our freedoms, we are just being nostalgic.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    theProle said:

    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.
    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    I wouldn't be shocked if the current lockdown lite was her brainwave too, to try and move the media story on.
    I think this may well be what finishes him - Tory MPs whose patience was wearing thin anyway aren't seeing the funny side of his nuking the country to change some bad headlines.

    She's done a lot of damage in other areas too - much of the economic self-harm in the name of greenery is her agenda too. Tory MPs know that too.

    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years, and actually been quite a good prime minister - it's all gone wrong for him since he decided to prioritise the desires of one of the nastiest bit of work to ever get near power.

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement), but he sided with Carrie every time.

    The inevitable divorce proceedings once they are out of no10 should provide some light entertainment anyway...

    There is certainly a Lady Macbeth vibe to the whole thing.
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree.

    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.

    I am not proposing to take away peoples citizenship without a fair and informed trial. She is. Not sure why I should have the same burden of answering questions here.
    Lets get facts right, she's not proposing it either. Its the law already. Thank Tony Blair for that.

    There can be an appeal after the fact, as per Begum, but its already the law.
    She is both reducing the bar, and the effective opportunity for appeal, so it is both. The old and current laws cover some cases, and the proposed one adds more potential cases in. I agree both should be limited. Once someone has a British passport, if they have done something seriously wrong we should prove it in a court of law and lock them up. All British passport holders should be equal in the eyes of the law.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021
    Foxy said:

    Musing over @Cyclefree's excellent header and the similar authoritarian criminalisation of even peaceful protest. Add in the widespread support for harsh measures on antivaxxers and restrictions on social activity and it leads to a pretty inescapable conclusion.

    This is not a country that values individual freedom or liberty. It likes the smack of firm government, though obviously aimed at "others".

    The reaction to covid restrictions has been "harder, hit me harder", when it comes to covid isn't unique to UK. The whole of Western Europe seems to be on the same page.

    Just look at Germany / Austria, given their history and still very sensitive about it, you would have thought talk of segregation of the unclean and mandatory vaccination would be a non-starter.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree.

    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?

    Impossible to answer most of those questions as the legislation is yet to be passed. And note we're talking about the potential for future abuse.

    The no notice provision (note also the retrospective application of this) will make accessing the courts much more difficult.
    The broad nature of the grounds for removal of citizenship also make challenge harder, since courts will give great weight to the Home Secretary's judgment on what is in "conducive to the public good".
    Thanks. Still awaiting lots of answers. And, BTW, I don't support this legislation. However, on the notice point, the reality is that people who behave abominably are perfectly able and willing in some cases to render access to them by way of legal notice impossible or impractical. For example by being at an unknown location in a distant war zone beheading people.

    Secondly courts are well able to develop law on what 'conducive to the public good' means. This will lie, I would guess somewhere between the anti public good behaviour of Jezza, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel on the one hand, and the behaviour of Genghis Khan on the other.

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153

    MattW said:

    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? :smile:
    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'.
    Happened in living memory, if we are thinking about THailand ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    But to have the perks and glory without the work and scrutiny is to want to have your cake and eat it.

    And for all BoJo wishes it, that doesn't work.

    It's worked his entire life
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Former Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow tells @GMB that Boris Johnson “stinks in the nostrils of decent people”.

    “The person in charge of the ship is charged with being a serial liar.”

    “I’ve known several Prime Ministers in my time and Boris Johnson is the worst.”


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1469222042977415169
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    Carnyx said:

    theProle said:

    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.
    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    I wouldn't be shocked if the current lockdown lite was her brainwave too, to try and move the media story on.
    I think this may well be what finishes him - Tory MPs whose patience was wearing thin anyway aren't seeing the funny side of his nuking the country to change some bad headlines.

    She's done a lot of damage in other areas too - much of the economic self-harm in the name of greenery is her agenda too. Tory MPs know that too.

    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years, and actually been quite a good prime minister - it's all gone wrong for him since he decided to prioritise the desires of one of the nastiest bit of work to ever get near power.

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement), but he sided with Carrie every time.

    The inevitable divorce proceedings once they are out of no10 should provide some light entertainment anyway...

    Woman-blaming. Edit: Even if you yourself don't intend that, it reads very easily as that and will upset half the population so is not a good argument in politics. And in any case, every single case, he only had to say no. He's the PM. She isn't.
    This is absoutely true. Its all on Boris. But as I pointed out in the past, she was welcomed as a 'breath of fresh air' by tory MPs after Cummings departure.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Paul Scully says he “feels very comfortable about the Prime Minister’s integrity?” Does he really believe that? Does anybody believe him on that? And what does it say about Scully’s own judgement - and integrity - that he can utter such a statement?
    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1469222987270340609
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,153
    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    theProle said:

    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.
    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    I wouldn't be shocked if the current lockdown lite was her brainwave too, to try and move the media story on.
    I think this may well be what finishes him - Tory MPs whose patience was wearing thin anyway aren't seeing the funny side of his nuking the country to change some bad headlines.

    She's done a lot of damage in other areas too - much of the economic self-harm in the name of greenery is her agenda too. Tory MPs know that too.

    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years, and actually been quite a good prime minister - it's all gone wrong for him since he decided to prioritise the desires of one of the nastiest bit of work to ever get near power.

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement), but he sided with Carrie every time.

    The inevitable divorce proceedings once they are out of no10 should provide some light entertainment anyway...

    Woman-blaming. Edit: Even if you yourself don't intend that, it reads very easily as that and will upset half the population so is not a good argument in politics. And in any case, every single case, he only had to say no. He's the PM. She isn't.
    This is absoutely true. Its all on Boris. But as I pointed out in the past, she was welcomed as a 'breath of fresh air' by tory MPs after Cummings departure.
    I hadn't known that: as if they were assuming some such unelected figure was not only acceptable but necessary.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    Yes, I acknowledged that at the start of the thread, as I thought it implicit in the above comment. The power for the Home Secretary to do this on such a broad scale and for such nebulous reasons is there already and ought not to be.
    The no notice provision, though, is a great increase in the Home Secretary's ability to use that power, since it makes any potential challenge through the courts significantly more difficult - and in some cases perhaps impossible.
    That she should feel it necessary to grant herself the power also suggests an intent to use it.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.

    Also interesting that he was only invited on because 'no Government minister was available'
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    We don't particularly know that. Even if we did that says nothing about any one particular mutation. Entirely possible means nothing more than that, as in it is entirely possible this coin will come up heads on the next toss.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    edited December 2021
    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    We don't particularly know that. Even if we did that says nothing about any one particular mutation. Entirely possible means nothing more than that, as in it is entirely possible this coin will come up heads on the next toss.
    Sorry, was away yesterday evening. What biscuits were served at the panic, and did someone put the folding chairs away properly?
  • F1: just under 40 minutes until first practice.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
    Would reading and understanding beyond the headline be a terrible thing?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    We don't particularly know that. Even if we did that says nothing about any one particular mutation. Entirely possible means nothing more than that, as in it is entirely possible this coin will come up heads on the next toss.
    Which is of course why I used those words. A tad closer to the money than the Private Fraser tribute act from our Leon.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    theProle said:



    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years,

    Yeah, cause he was a model of probity and sound administrative capabilities before he met NutNut.

    I actually think some tory MPs will have less tolerance for Johnson's broad spectrum dishonesty and incompetence than an 80 seat majority would otherwise suggest.. He is personally and inextricably linked with brexit. If the shitmunchers come to loathe Johnson and all his works then their precious might in be jeopardy so they ice pick him before he drags it all down with him.
  • Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Scott_xP said:

    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

    The problem with the "BoZo should have quit" theories is that he doesn't want to.

    He wants to live in the most exclusive address in the country with ludicrous wallpaper.

    He wants the title, the pomp, the ceremony.

    He wants the job.

    He just doesn't want to do the work.
    He also doesn't want the questioning.

    But to have the perks and glory without the work and scrutiny is to want to have your cake and eat it.

    And for all BoJo wishes it, that doesn't work.
    I suspect Boris knows that the only way he can be lazy is by being in charge and elected.

    No company would keep a disastrous leader in power but an elected leader is there for x years until the next election unless the Tory party gets some backbone
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Significant interview with @Nus_Ghani a senior member of the 1922 committee on #r4today, asked if she could give her support to Boris Johnson, said let’s wait for the outcome of the investigation into No10 parties
    https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1469228037514436610
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited December 2021
    Foxy said:

    Musing over @Cyclefree's excellent header and the similar authoritarian criminalisation of even peaceful protest. Add in the widespread support for harsh measures on antivaxxers and restrictions on social activity and it leads to a pretty inescapable conclusion.

    This is not a country that values individual freedom or liberty. It likes the smack of firm government, though obviously aimed at "others".

    I generally agree with you on many things @Foxy, and certainly regarding the citizenship and protest bills, which are very dangerous.

    However, I see placing restrictions on those who choose to remain unvaccinated as akin to restrictions on those who choose to smoke. Indeed in may ways I have more sympathies for the smokers - theirs is a hard to kick addiction. The unvaccinated in contrast are making a selfish choice - I have little sympathy for them.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
    Would reading and understanding beyond the headline be a terrible thing?
    He said in the text of the article "This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly,"

    A variant that will get rid of Delta completely and is significantly milder in the illness it produces does not seem to me to be as bad news as you can possibly get
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    We don't particularly know that. Even if we did that says nothing about any one particular mutation. Entirely possible means nothing more than that, as in it is entirely possible this coin will come up heads on the next toss.
    Seems like the very worst thing we could do from an evolutionary pathway perspective, is to lock down cases with asymptomatic or mild symptoms, while shovelling those with serious illness into hospitals. Which with the best will in the world, appear to be a hot bed of onward transmission and have a high proportion of compromised immune systems to act as variant incubators.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    I lumped a tenner on him a while back when there was dissatisfaction with Starmer (seems a long time ago now). Looks a decent shot.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Meanwhile the same Johnson currently besieged in Number 10 agreed a Brexit deal that is causing mayhem with much worse to come in January. In politics everything connects:
    https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1469228919987576839
    https://twitter.com/coldchainshane/status/1468893309217222656
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    🔴 NEW: Tory backbenchers are having "conversations" about how to oust Boris Johnson

    Follow the latest updates on our @TelePolitics live blog 👇
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/10/boris-johnson-news-tory-rebellion-downing-street-christmas-party/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    MrEd said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    I had a fascinating discussion with a legal type over the visit of the Chinese premier very early in New Labour's run. For those who don't remember, Tibet was a big thing at the time. The UK Government used all kinds of arcane laws relating to things like Royal Parks to (effectively) criminalise polite, peaceful protest. We had police arresting people for hiding up a sign saying "Respect Tibet".

    His view was since the laws were there, it was impossible to argue against using them to their fullest extent possible. And that since it was legal, it was *immoral* to argue against using them in this way. Because you would be arguing that The Law wasn't right....
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    I think that is to misunderstand what is happening, which is that vast numbers of people now have some degree of immunity against the virus - whether from prior infection or vaccination - and while the virus can mutate to evade this immunity sufficiently to cause reinfection, it would take much more mutation to evade immunity to cause serious illness.

    Omnicron might be more deadly in those without immunity, but the size of that population is rapidly diminishing. Given the extent of asymptomatic infection from previous variants, it would be pretty hard for us to identify populations without immunity to measure it's fatality rate.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    Yes, I acknowledged that at the start of the thread, as I thought it implicit in the above comment. The power for the Home Secretary to do this on such a broad scale and for such nebulous reasons is there already and ought not to be.
    The no notice provision, though, is a great increase in the Home Secretary's ability to use that power, since it makes any potential challenge through the courts significantly more difficult - and in some cases perhaps impossible.
    That she should feel it necessary to grant herself the power also suggests an intent to use it.
    Someone needs write a Great Repeal Bill.

    While you are at it, include removal of the protection of Government offices/organisations from civil penalties. Many of us enjoyed the moment when a Judge sent the bailiffs in to an HMRC office for non-payment. And it is so rare to enjoy events in public life.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    Don’t know much about him. If that’s the case, I hope he gets a bit of time to season rather than being thrust into the leadership role too soon and burning out before his time.

    Whatever one might think of his time as Foreign Sec, William Hague is a great example of someone who got given the job far too early but would have been been a more reliable pair of hands than anything we’ve had since 2016. Arguably since 2010 now I think about it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
    Would reading and understanding beyond the headline be a terrible thing?
    He said in the text of the article "This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly,"

    A variant that will get rid of Delta completely and is significantly milder in the illness it produces does not seem to me to be as bad news as you can possibly get
    A. We don't know it will B. We don't know it is C. Even if A and B are right it is still highly likely (and this is his point) that the additional number of infections will more than outweigh the drop in virulence
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    MrEd said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    I had a fascinating discussion with a legal type over the visit of the Chinese premier very early in New Labour's run. For those who don't remember, Tibet was a big thing at the time. The UK Government used all kinds of arcane laws relating to things like Royal Parks to (effectively) criminalise polite, peaceful protest. We had police arresting people for hiding up a sign saying "Respect Tibet".

    His view was since the laws were there, it was impossible to argue against using them to their fullest extent possible. And that since it was legal, it was *immoral* to argue against using them in this way. Because you would be arguing that The Law wasn't right....
    The position of the Law is a curious one. It's entirely a human-created thing. We can change it to whatever extent we want. And yet, to make it effective, we have to imbue it with moral force, to make-believe that it is inherently good.
  • Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    I lumped a tenner on him a while back when there was dissatisfaction with Starmer (seems a long time ago now). Looks a decent shot.
    I have a small nibble on him, but we need to bear in mind that the left in the party would rather destroy Labour than see him as leader.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Err, this will end well, err.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59596267

    Sorare is the next football index....
    Fan tokens seem a bit of an odd one to me. The dog themed meme tokens have universal appeal. After all who doesn't love a shiba inu pup ? Whereas $MANU - well it's not going to be bought by Arsenal or Liverpool fans is it so your potential market cap is never as high as a more universal themed (Even joke) currency.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    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? :smile:
    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'.
    Happened in living memory, if we are thinking about THailand ...
    Depends on whose 'living' or course.Yes, but not an episode the Thai's seem keen to remember and, IMHO anyway, highly unlikely to happen again.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,538
    moonshine said:

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    Don’t know much about him. If that’s the case, I hope he gets a bit of time to season rather than being thrust into the leadership role too soon and burning out before his time.

    Whatever one might think of his time as Foreign Sec, William Hague is a great example of someone who got given the job far too early but would have been been a more reliable pair of hands than anything we’ve had since 2016. Arguably since 2010 now I think about it.
    When I think of William Hague, I think of two people: one, the man who took on an impossible job in 1997 and handled it poorly/reasonably (depending on viewpoint). Then I see the Hague of 2010 onwards, who generally seemed a bit more of a senior beast.

    So he changed. The question is: how much of that change was due to his punishing experience as leader? There's a good chance that Hague getting the leadership later, say in 2005, would have made similar mistakes to those he made in 1997.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    He's certainly very capable, with moderate views and a fair degree of common sense, which amid the current state of the Labour Party makes it relatively easy for him to shine. But he is what you'd get if you trained someone up from school age as a future politician, and he has the weaknesses that you'd expect go along with that; his principles and integrity and trustworthiness are neither better nor worse than the next politician along.

    In terms of potentially making the very top the challenge for him is whether he can develop what you might call the 'common touch' despite a working life spent almost entirely within lobbying and politics.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
    Would reading and understanding beyond the headline be a terrible thing?
    He said in the text of the article "This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly,"

    A variant that will get rid of Delta completely and is significantly milder in the illness it produces does not seem to me to be as bad news as you can possibly get
    A. We don't know it will B. We don't know it is C. Even if A and B are right it is still highly likely (and this is his point) that the additional number of infections will more than outweigh the drop in virulence
    Omicron is completely rife in SA but hardly anyone is in hospital with Covid as the reason for their admittance. I realise they have a younger population but vaccine take up there is limited, HIV is very prevelant and lots of people live in unsanitary conditions. Omicron will take over from Delta in the world and will kill it off as it is more transmissable. The only way Omicron can be replaced is if another mutation happens which is more transmissable than Omicron. That would seem unlikely. I also do not think that it is too early to tell with the data. Omicron has been in SA for 6-8 weeks and the onset of symptoms is quicker than Delta and it also does not last as long.

    Dr John Campbell makes all thses points in his video from a couple of days ago:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited December 2021
    moonshine said:

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    Don’t know much about him. If that’s the case, I hope he gets a bit of time to season rather than being thrust into the leadership role too soon and burning out before his time.

    Whatever one might think of his time as Foreign Sec, William Hague is a great example of someone who got given the job far too early but would have been been a more reliable pair of hands than anything we’ve had since 2016. Arguably since 2010 now I think about it.
    Yes, that's a very astute point. The current state of Labour makes it easier for someone capable to rise relatively quickly; looking forward there's clearly a risk of his doing a Hague or Miliband and getting promoted before he's picked up some middle age gravitas and perspective.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
    Today will be on iPlayer shortly
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    I turned on R4 this morning to hear a very sensible shad cab minister talking to Justin Webb about stuff and thought: he sounds very sensible. I then said a brief prayer hoping that it wasn't Richard Burgon. I knew it wasn't David Lammy. And lo it was Wes.

    Very sensible, very good performance. Certainly don't disagree with your prognosis although have no idea if he has any bonkers ideas that were not aired just now.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    The Prime Minister started the week dressed in police uniform attempting to persuade the nation that he has crime under control.

    He is finishing the week with no control at all.
    https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/10/keir-starmer-boris-johnsons-government-is-a-joke-but-no-one-is-laughing-15746961/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
    Today will be on iPlayer shortly
    True - just need to know roughly what time Streeting's was on.
  • "That Boris Johnson’s brief reign may now effectively be over no longer seems to me to be in any doubt."

    "Once much of the press has got it in for a prime minister, the end is never long in coming."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/10/chilling-truth-lockdown-still-popular/
  • Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
    Today will be on iPlayer shortly
    True - just need to know roughly what time Streeting's was on.
    8.35-ish
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    MrEd said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    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.
    I had a fascinating discussion with a legal type over the visit of the Chinese premier very early in New Labour's run. For those who don't remember, Tibet was a big thing at the time. The UK Government used all kinds of arcane laws relating to things like Royal Parks to (effectively) criminalise polite, peaceful protest. We had police arresting people for hiding up a sign saying "Respect Tibet".

    His view was since the laws were there, it was impossible to argue against using them to their fullest extent possible. And that since it was legal, it was *immoral* to argue against using them in this way. Because you would be arguing that The Law wasn't right....
    The position of the Law is a curious one. It's entirely a human-created thing. We can change it to whatever extent we want. And yet, to make it effective, we have to imbue it with moral force, to make-believe that it is inherently good.
    Indeed

    And then people want judges to make law, but be above criticism. Let alone challenge.

    I get the impression that some wouldn't mind a dictatorship, as long as all the dictating is done by high end QCs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited December 2021

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
    Will be here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001286n shortly
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    I think that is to misunderstand what is happening, which is that vast numbers of people now have some degree of immunity against the virus - whether from prior infection or vaccination - and while the virus can mutate to evade this immunity sufficiently to cause reinfection, it would take much more mutation to evade immunity to cause serious illness.

    Omnicron might be more deadly in those without immunity, but the size of that population is rapidly diminishing. Given the extent of asymptomatic infection from previous variants, it would be pretty hard for us to identify populations without immunity to measure it's fatality rate.
    We won't fully understand what's happening until after it has happened.

    But we know that virus variants that are more transmissable and less serious have an advantage over their predecessors - the transmissable point is obvious; the advantage in being less serious is partly so your victims survive to pass it on, but mostly because a virus that makes you less noticeably ill lets you carry on your normal life and others more willing to interact with you, so it gets spread more quickly than one where you're laid up in bed suffering from highly visible symptoms.

    So evolution tells us how this will very likely end; the question is how we get there, and the biggest risk (albeit likely temporary) is if a variation arises that significantly evades any resistance from the vaccines. Various experts have already said that the nature of coronaviruses makes this unlikely.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Scott_xP said:

    The Prime Minister started the week dressed in police uniform attempting to persuade the nation that he has crime under control.

    He is finishing the week with no control at all.
    https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/10/keir-starmer-boris-johnsons-government-is-a-joke-but-no-one-is-laughing-15746961/

    'Boris Johnson's government is a joke but no one is laughing' is a great line which, even though Starmer didn't say it, may come to be attributed to him as the summation of Johnson's demise.
  • "That Boris Johnson’s brief reign may now effectively be over no longer seems to me to be in any doubt."

    "Once much of the press has got it in for a prime minister, the end is never long in coming."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/10/chilling-truth-lockdown-still-popular/

    He needs to do the decent thing and announce he is standing down and invite the conservative party to elect his successor
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Plan B is do not work in your office but go to your office christmas party.

    Plan B is your must wear a mask in Next but you can stand at the bar in a crowded pub without one on.

    And thats a balanced approach?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    "That Boris Johnson’s brief reign may now effectively be over no longer seems to me to be in any doubt."

    "Once much of the press has got it in for a prime minister, the end is never long in coming."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/10/chilling-truth-lockdown-still-popular/

    He needs to do the decent thing...
    There's a first time for everything, I guess. But how likely is that?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Scott_xP said:

    Really strong @wesstreeting interview just now @BBCr4today Gosh, Labour is sounding confident and statesmanlike for the first time in a long time.
    https://twitter.com/juliahobsbawm/status/1469222187001425920

    I thought it was good too - principled and direct “if others want to p*ss around over public health, Labour won’t”.
    Missed the Wes Streeting interview - anyone got a link to it?
    Will be here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001286n shortly
    Thanks - it's on iPlayer now.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    Up to date info on SA Omicron

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Of the 4795 currently in hospital 4004 are on General Wards and 662 are receiving oxygen. This indicates that the vast majority of these patients are not in hospital for Covid despite Omicron running wild in SA.

    The headline of this Sky News report looks terrible but if you read the text it is extremely positive.

    https://news.sky.com/story/omicron-its-like-a-bomb-new-covid-strain-sweeps-through-south-africa-township-but-majority-of-hospital-patients-dont-need-extra-oxygen-12491084

    Reviewing Sean's usual drunken scare-mongering overnight, he is clearly prejudging things.

    We know that the likely end state for this virus is that it evolves to the point where it is less threatening and becomes part of the background of contagious viruses that people catch now and again, almost entirely harmlessly for almost all people but potentially still threatening for some of those already vulnerable.

    It is entirely possible that this new variant turns out to be a step in that direction.
    It surprises me given the data that some Scientists are making statements like this:

    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-omicron-variant-as-bad-news-as-you-can-possibly-get-for-christmas-leading-scientist-says-12491001

    "As bad as you can get"??? All the data and anecdotal evidence from SA is that Omicron is significantly milder, leads to far less hospitalisations and only lasts 2-3 days.
    Would reading and understanding beyond the headline be a terrible thing?
    He said in the text of the article "This is as bad news as you can possibly get, quite frankly,"

    A variant that will get rid of Delta completely and is significantly milder in the illness it produces does not seem to me to be as bad news as you can possibly get
    I think it’s fair to say that John Edmunds is not known for moderate and balanced commentary. Nor accurate predictions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Plan B is do not work in your office but go to your office christmas party.

    Plan B is your must wear a mask in Next but you can stand at the bar in a crowded pub without one on.

    And thats a balanced approach?
    Plan B's main effect is to require Vaxports for nightclubs and large events. If Vaxports are then expanded to pubs and restaurants and cinemas and theatres etc as an alternative to another lockdown, so be it
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    theProle said:

    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    Found Dom's alt account.
    theProle said:

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement)

    Definitely found Dom's alt account.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    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.

    Welcome back.
    The bad news for everyone is that I wasn't going to post on here again if they didn't reinstate you. So they've got you back, yay. But that means you've still got me, boo.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Yes, I listened to Wes Streeting. It was hilarious, because he did a much better job of justifying Plan B (and therefore explaining Labour's support for it) than the government (or even the scientists) have done over the last couple of days. If you missed the bits where he was sticking the boot in to Boris, you could have thought he was a government spokesperson. As it was, he was very good - articulate, almost statesmanlike, but also holding the PM to account.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited December 2021
    Alistair said:

    Why I am not (yet) concerned about Omicron and neither should you in two charts




    World cases and deaths. Previous case waves have been followed by death waves lagged by 2 weeks. The current case wave started on October 18th. There is no resultant death wave. Unless the data is reallllllllllly lagged the death wave "should" have started at the begining of November. It hasn't.

    Reinfection & breakthroughs, whilst annoying and that make 'herd immunity' shouldn't be fatal to the same degree as naive infection as the body has "seen" the virus previously and produced antibodies.

    I wonder what degree the world is naive to Covid now, how the various combinations of infected & recovered are. Also my colleague who is due at the end of Jan her daughter will be born with both prior infection & triple booster antibodies. Every day global immunity should inch forward against Covid.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    Alistair said:

    Why I am not (yet) concerned about Omicron and neither should you in two charts




    World cases and deaths. Previous case waves have been followed by death waves lagged by 2 weeks. The current case wave started on October 18th. There is no resultant death wave. Unless the data is reallllllllllly lagged the death wave "should" have started at the begining of November. It hasn't.

    Indeed. Which is pretty much exactly what the South Africans have been saying. Similarly, the Batswana.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Plan B is do not work in your office but go to your office christmas party.

    Plan B is your must wear a mask in Next but you can stand at the bar in a crowded pub without one on.

    And thats a balanced approach?
    I mean I don't necessarily agree with all this but it does make sense. You don't shut the whole economy you pick and choose. Arbitrarily. It is all aimed at reducing the spread. Will it? Who knows - it doesn't seem to in Europe but I get the aim.
  • IanB2 said:

    "That Boris Johnson’s brief reign may now effectively be over no longer seems to me to be in any doubt."

    "Once much of the press has got it in for a prime minister, the end is never long in coming."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/10/chilling-truth-lockdown-still-popular/

    He needs to do the decent thing...
    There's a first time for everything, I guess. But how likely is that?
    It is complex but he does not seem to have recovered fully from covid, he presents himself as a shambles which he is, and now he has a baby in the family

    The sheer torrent of attacks coming from across the spectrum has to be draining his mental health, and of course he may see the inevitable coming and decides for the sake of his family and his well being he leaves before he is pushed
  • GIN1138 said:
    Just wait till Carrie finds out!
    My family are furious
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Carnyx said:

    theProle said:

    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.
    The irony is that Johnson is basically going to go "for being in possession of an offensive wife".

    Every single one of the stupid disasters which are ushering him out the door go straight back to Princess Nut Nut.
    Wallpaper - Carrie
    Afghan animal taxis - Carrie
    Parties - Carrie (at least one with her present).

    I wouldn't be shocked if the current lockdown lite was her brainwave too, to try and move the media story on.
    I think this may well be what finishes him - Tory MPs whose patience was wearing thin anyway aren't seeing the funny side of his nuking the country to change some bad headlines.

    She's done a lot of damage in other areas too - much of the economic self-harm in the name of greenery is her agenda too. Tory MPs know that too.

    Had he not listened to Carrie, Boris might have been far less self distructive over the last couple of years, and actually been quite a good prime minister - it's all gone wrong for him since he decided to prioritise the desires of one of the nastiest bit of work to ever get near power.

    He's had people giving him sound advice (Cummings for all he's a disreputable nutter was right about a lot of stuff - I'm fairly sure it's him we have to thank for Kate Bingham doing the vaccine procurement), but he sided with Carrie every time.

    The inevitable divorce proceedings once they are out of no10 should provide some light entertainment anyway...

    Woman-blaming. Edit: Even if you yourself don't intend that, it reads very easily as that and will upset half the population so is not a good argument in politics. And in any case, every single case, he only had to say no. He's the PM. She isn't.
    I had a bit to do with lobbying over the Afghan pet rescue operation (I'm an animal welfare campaigner, so it's what I do), and have good reason to think that Carrie wasn't involved in that particular decision. In general I agree with Carnyx - it's pathetic for loyalists to defend the PM on the basis that "he's a great guy really, so it must be his wife that persuaded him". If you want to be supportive, fine, defend him directly, as I did with Corbyn.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Plan B is do not work in your office but go to your office christmas party.

    Plan B is your must wear a mask in Next but you can stand at the bar in a crowded pub without one on.

    And thats a balanced approach?
    This has been the issue all the way through this. its easy to pick holes. The best approach it to look at a whole suite of things that could be done, all of which may have an effect in reducing transmission. Of course choosing some but not others will lead to what seems like stupidity, but we also need to balance covid rules against keeping society going to. Wearing a mask in next is not that big a burden (I hate them, but I get on with it). Wearing one in the pub destroys the activity completely, and cannot be maintained - how do you drink with a mask on?

    I think that the government this week has used Plan B to distract from the parties etc. But I also think that they have been pushed by SAGE, or some on SAGE, that more restrictions, early, may be useful as we go into the (hopefully mild) omicron wave and still deal with 7000 people in hospital with covid and around 800 a day going in.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,395

    moonshine said:

    Wes Streeting who is only 38 looks like a future leader and PM

    Don’t know much about him. If that’s the case, I hope he gets a bit of time to season rather than being thrust into the leadership role too soon and burning out before his time.

    Whatever one might think of his time as Foreign Sec, William Hague is a great example of someone who got given the job far too early but would have been been a more reliable pair of hands than anything we’ve had since 2016. Arguably since 2010 now I think about it.
    When I think of William Hague, I think of two people: one, the man who took on an impossible job in 1997 and handled it poorly/reasonably (depending on viewpoint). Then I see the Hague of 2010 onwards, who generally seemed a bit more of a senior beast.

    So he changed. The question is: how much of that change was due to his punishing experience as leader? There's a good chance that Hague getting the leadership later, say in 2005, would have made similar mistakes to those he made in 1997.
    What mistakes did he make? He was in an utterly impossible position facing first-term Blair 1997-2001. You need to remember that the Tories were facing an apparently existential crisis which lasted beyond 2001. I remember it looking like a potential meltdown even in 2005 when the Tories were faced with the LibDems' decapitation strategy which could have removed a whole swathe of frontbenchers. (In the event they only got the Shadow Education Secretary, removed by Tim Farron. Forgotten his name, but also called Tim, I think.)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620

    Perhaps the most striking thing about @wesstreeting performance on Today (and he's had lots of plaudits) is he did a better job than most Cabinet ministers of explaining the balanced approach of Plan B.
    Which is the first step towards the public thinking: Lab hv a govt in waiting


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1469232205004251138?s=20

    Plan B is do not work in your office but go to your office christmas party.

    Plan B is your must wear a mask in Next but you can stand at the bar in a crowded pub without one on.

    And thats a balanced approach?
    I don’t grasp why fashion stores are included in the maskery. They are hardly essential. Lots of people (mainly but not exclusively women) enjoy shopping as a leisure activity. If you’d excluded those you could have at least made an argument that maskery was only for essential shops.
This discussion has been closed.