Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA
We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. Scientists come in and explain things, or academic research is published, and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge. This is Vallance's observation.
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages.
So now they can't even question the scientists? Boris really is trying to bounce the Cabinet into this and make the likes of Rishi own it. I really hope they have the stones to tell him to get fucked.
I was told at the beginning of the pandemic by someone on a position to know, that Patrick Valance was a idiot and only has a job in govt because the private sector would no longer take him. It makes a lot of sense if it’s him giving commands for the modelling to be tailored to meet his preconceived view. Presumably it’s in his power to sack that commie Michie and he still hasn’t.
I do hope MI5 have been wise to how easily our nation can be undermined by a few anonymous technocrats.
The potential replacements for Johnson don't look much better:
In no particular order
Truss: PPE Sunak: PPE Javid: Economics Gove: English Raab: Law Patel: Economics Wallace: Sandhurst Barclay: History Kwarteng: Classics/History Sharma: Applied Physics & Electronics Dorries: Nursing Treveleyan: Accountancy Coffey: Chemistry Zahawi: Chemical Engineering Shapps: HND in Business Lewis: Economics/Law
So what? Most of SAGE have science degrees
Yes - and the Cabinet are largely not well equipped to challenge them.
You don't need a science degree to read a graph and Coffey for instance has a phd in Chemistry and is in the Cabinet. Politicians should still be capable of making a decision balancing the economy and public health based on advise from scientists and economists even with degrees in neither
Predicted week 50 admissions: 8146 (massive fall from yesterday's projection. Now only +13% week on week) Predicted week 50 deaths: 391 (slightly down from 400 yesterday. a +77% week on week so still a big rise)
Basically it looks like other regions that are not Gauteng have not seen the steep rise in admissions that you would have been expecting.
A bit more good news re: Omicron?
I take it as generally encouraging. I was pondering the possibility of SA having a "second wave" of Omicron as the provinces outside of Gauteng ran up to their own peaks. But it looks like it is not happening.
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
How many of them are experts in immunology and epidemiology?
You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA
You assume that the EU can 'shunt' the UK anywhere. Thankfully since we left that is no longer their choice.
I think you are taking it a bit too literally.
They can block us from rejoining - DeGaulle did it before, so we either have a CU&SM special on their terms (because it is their market) or join the EEA and become rule takers.
The two flaws in your argument are firstly that I can't see us even asking to rejoin for the next few decades - if ever - and secondly that the EFTA members of the EEA are not 'rule takers'. This was the myth put about by the anti-Brexit lot prior to the referendum. The EEA via EFTA is a far better result than EU membership and the only barrier to EEA membership for many in the UK would be freedom of movement. Something which I would see as a plus not a minus. Trade and freedom of movement without all the political and social interference is just right for me.
But not right for lower paid UK workers given how our benefits system attracted so many Eastern Europeans once they discovered it.
That really is an issue that would need to be fixed (heck it may already be) were we to head in that direction.
Yep so we fix it. It is not by any means an insurmountable problem and would be good to sort it out irrespective of any future EEA moves.
Yep it would need to be fixed as it's the reason why whenever we talk about Brexit that I blame Blair and Brown as much as Cameron for creating the mess.
Cameron just asked a stupid question badly, Blair and Brown created the circumstances that made the result possible.
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. The scientists come in and explain things and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge.
Chris Whitty has worked for DFID and the Department of Health, he is effectively a civil servant as CMO
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. The scientists come in and explain things and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge.
Chris Whitty has worked for DFID and the Department of Health, he is effectively a civil servant as CMO
As a whole.....and I didn't say none, I said a lack of....as I say, this isn't my observation, this is Patrick Vallance's. What he is really talking about is the lack of STEM talent outside of the very prescribed "science" roles such as CMO. It is also really what Big Dom was getting at, albeit in his blow everything up and start again in a chaotic way.
For Labour, surely something like STV is the route to becoming relevant again in Scotland. They would never get back all the seats they used to rely on North of the border, but it would surely break the current pattern of Tories lapping up all the anti-SNP votes and would enable Labour to make inroads back into the central belt cities again. Even putting aside Lib Dem pressure there seems to be a partisan benefit to Labour from PR.
The biggest downside I expect would not be Lib Dem gains at Labour's expense (which seem doubtful anyway, more likely the Lib Dems would benefit from a lot more representation in multi-member constituencies in Southern Tory shires). It's that they ship vast amounts of votes and seats to the Greens, driven by young urban voters. Labour would need to sharpen up its act to keep hold of these. I think I agree that it's the Labour centrists with the most to fear. On the other hand, if the goal isn't tribal success but policies that are good for the country, then I imagine Labour centrists would be pretty happy with the likely outcome of a post-PR election.
You fail to identify the key problem with PR for Labour (and the Tories): it encourages splitting.
Look at Sweden’s parliamentary parties:
2 Labour parties - a Left one and a Social Democrat one
2 Liberal parties - an agrarian one and an urban one
2 centre-right parties - a Moderate one (think Tory Wet) and a Christian Democrat one
1 Green party
1 anti-immigration party
So yes, Scottish Labour would shift tons of votes to the Scottish Greens, but they would also probably split into Red and Blairite varieties.
Is that a bad thing ? It would show the various factions just how popular they are, or aren't. Which is sort of the point of democracy.
Oh, I agree! But I’m not sure Keir Starmer does. For the reason I outlined.
You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA
We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.
That sounds about right
Only if you believe in straw men. No one with any sanity would be interested in rejoining anyway so whether the EU would want us or not becomes a moot point.
The only ones who might be upset about it would be those who never reconciled themselves to Brexit and were faced with their fantasies about rejoining being dashed. It is the Europhiles who always had the warped view of our relationship with the EU and thought we were more important than we really were and it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
The thread header is talking about an arrangement which would accommodate the Greens. Would you not describe them as 'fringe far left'?
Far left in the sense that UKIP is far right, i.e. still democratic, albeit with quite extreme views. What about a socialist worker's party that wanted to defenestrate the monarchy and seize all private wealth or a golden dawn style or quazi neo nazi far right group?
I think PR probably encourages the growth of such groups, which I don't think is necessarily healthy for democracy.
One thing I am sure of is that the opposition has grown, both in number but also in determination. It may still be the minority view, but those opposed to lockdown are now much more vocal and bolshy
Large parts of the lockdown support comes from people for whom it makes no difference. Opposition can be a minority and yet render it meaningless if all the people who actually go out crack on.
Is it true though? Lots of cancellations are reported by restaurants but surely these cancelled bookings were initially made by people who did want to go out.
No, subtle difference here - these are people adjusting their behaviour according to their own calibration of risk (and largely, it's 'will I miss my first family Christmas since 2019 by catching covid' rather than 'will I die?'). That doesn't mean they wish to be prevented from going out. I would expect, left to our own devices, we would see a significant reduction in R, probably to less than 1, by Christmas, simply through this alone. Of course, left to our own devices, R would then go up again afterwards as people would self-police less rigorously with fewer specific events to avoid covid for. (All of which of course ignores other impacts on R from boosters etc.)
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
How many of them are experts in immunology and epidemiology?
Chris Whitty has researched infectious diseases across Asia and Africa for years.
I think I'd be OK with PR for Westminster elections, as long as it was national PR with a 5% threshold, to keep the nationalists out of Parliament forever.
UKIP got 12% in 2015 and would have won seats even with a 5% threshold
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
I'm unconvinced. I think it far more likely that one or other of the major parties comes under the control of such people under the current system.
You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA
We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.
It’s all very predictable.
Nobody likes them Everybody hates them Guess they’ll go eat worms Big fat juicy ones
Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.
In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result
The Liberal Democrat base, grassroots and membership have been strongly opposed to any more co-operation with the Tories, all the way since 2015, and after Brexit and the new populism, doubly so. I very much doubt that would be possible.
Yes - 2015 showed conclusively that any co-operation with the Tories leads to an extinction-level event for the LDs.
You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA
We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.
That sounds about right
Only if you believe in straw men. No one with any sanity would be interested in rejoining anyway so whether the EU would want us or not becomes a moot point.
The only ones who might be upset about it would be those who never reconciled themselves to Brexit and were faced with their fantasies about rejoining being dashed. It is the Europhiles who always had the warped view of our relationship with the EU and thought we were more important than we really were and it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.
If you are referring to me, then on a personal basis, I do not really give a monkeys if the UK never rejoins.
The only illusions I have had shattered is that I thought the UK was a leading country repected across the world whereas it has turned out to be a small nation in slow decline with an incompetent govt led by a clown.
it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.
The Brexiteers were the ones that predicted the demise of the EU if we left.
Didn't happen.
And while it is true, we don't matter to the EU, the problem is it matters to us.
A lot.
Which is why Brexit is not 'done" and continues to consume its children at a rate of knots
Simply not true. There may have been a few lunatic fringers - think of them as the Brexit equivalent of yourself - who were hoping for such a thing but most on the Brexit side were clear that the reason for leaving was the exact opposite - that the EU was becoming too powerfully centralised and that our slight value to them and hence our influence would continue to decline. We got out before it was too late.
It was only you pro-EU fanatics who thought the UK mattered to the EU and that we could stay in and use our 'influence' to change it. Something that we had singularly failed to do for decades.
An informal arrangement for Lab not to compete hard in the top ?50 LD seats (and vice versa) is a necessity.
Greens are tactically irrelevant, and their voters are harder to redirect anyway. Lab needs a “big offer” to students to attract younger voters away from them.
Lab and LD can’t afford to touch SNP with a barge-pole, indeed they need to take them head on in Scotland by portraying them as the Tory’s secret weapon.
Look how well that's worked for SLab for the last 40 years.
I'd suggest such a tack for the SLDs might be less than fruitful, insofar as anyone gives a fcuk what they think.
'I can work with Tories to save the Union, says Lib Dems’ next leader Alex Cole-Hamilton'
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
Most of SAGE have science degrees
SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. The scientists come in and explain things and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge.
Chris Whitty has worked for DFID and the Department of Health, he is effectively a civil servant as CMO
As a whole.....and I didn't say none, I said a lack of....as I say, this isn't my observation, this is Patrick Vallance's. What he is really talking about is the lack of STEM talent outside of the very prescribed "science" roles such as CMO. It is also really what Big Dom was getting at, albeit in his blow everything up and start again in a chaotic way.
When selecting parliamentary candidates, parties should ask them if they have the capability to understand scientific issues, and to question scientists about their assumptions and data related to their advice. Parliamentary candidates are already expected to be conversant with business, economic, legal and political issues.
Also, perhaps it is time for a few scientists and engineers to be appointed to the House of Lords to act as role models.
Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.
In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result
In the longer term it's not impossible, but 'next time' - in however many years that may be - it absolutely won't be the Tories, whatever the policy issues and whoever the leader, for reasons that will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Former Corbyn Aide Laura Murray has lost her libel battle against Countdown star Rachel Riley, resulting in a £10,000 payout.
It shouldn’t be too difficult for Laura to stump up the money, given her family previously sold a Picasso portrait for £50 million in 2013 – they must be able to find £10,000 down the back of the sofa…
What is it with these Corbynistas being filthy rich....Also its of course its all a very small world, Laura is Andrew Murray's daughter, who was married to Susan Michie.
Finding the £10k is going to be the least of her worries. Wait until she sees the bill for legal costs.
One thing I am sure of is that the opposition has grown, both in number but also in determination. It may still be the minority view, but those opposed to lockdown are now much more vocal and bolshy
Large parts of the lockdown support comes from people for whom it makes no difference. Opposition can be a minority and yet render it meaningless if all the people who actually go out crack on.
Is it true though? Lots of cancellations are reported by restaurants but surely these cancelled bookings were initially made by people who did want to go out.
No, subtle difference here - these are people adjusting their behaviour according to their own calibration of risk (and largely, it's 'will I miss my first family Christmas since 2019 by catching covid' rather than 'will I die?'). That doesn't mean they wish to be prevented from going out. I would expect, left to our own devices, we would see a significant reduction in R, probably to less than 1, by Christmas, simply through this alone. Of course, left to our own devices, R would then go up again afterwards as people would self-police less rigorously with fewer specific events to avoid covid for. (All of which of course ignores other impacts on R from boosters etc.)
Yep this is exactly it. No one wants to risk being prevented from seeing family before Christmas because they have caught something that, whilst it will do them no great harm, would make it illegal for them to see loved ones. Also, in spite of the Government messages to the contrary, most people I know still think that if you are in contact with someone who has covid you have to isolate for a week. This is affecting a lot of people's behaviour.
Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.
In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result
The Liberal Democrat base, grassroots and membership have been strongly opposed to any more co-operation with the Tories, all the way since 2015, and after Brexit and the new populism, doubly so. I very much doubt that would be possible.
Yes - 2015 showed conclusively that any co-operation with the Tories leads to an extinction-level event for the LDs.
The LDs still got 8% even in 2015, which under PR would get them almost 60 seats.
Co operation with the Tories may damage the LDs under FPTP as there are fewer economic and social Orange Book style Liberal voters than social democratic and social liberal LD voters. Under PR however there would be plenty of LD and Tory deals, as well as LD and Labour deals.
However even under FPTP while the LDs would not touch Boris with a bargepole if the more Cameron like Sunak was Tory leader and say less than 10 seats from a majority with the Tories comfortably largest party then I would not be surprised to see Davey keep him in office. Remember too most LD held seats now voted for Cameron in 2015 and not a single one voted for Ed Miliband while many seats the LDs won in 2010 voted for Labour in 1997 and 2001
Former Corbyn Aide Laura Murray has lost her libel battle against Countdown star Rachel Riley, resulting in a £10,000 payout.
It shouldn’t be too difficult for Laura to stump up the money, given her family previously sold a Picasso portrait for £50 million in 2013 – they must be able to find £10,000 down the back of the sofa…
What is it with these Corbynistas being filthy rich....Also its of course its all a very small world, Laura is Andrew Murray's daughter, who was married to Susan Michie.
Finding the £10k is going to be the least of her worries. Wait until she sees the bill for legal costs.
We will probably find daddy has a friend who did it for free.
Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.
In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result
iirc in 2010 Brown offered to resign as the price of LibDem support but, well, the rest is history.
OT, but there may be people who can advise, given the collective knowledge round here.
I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.
I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.
I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)
I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.
The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.
Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?
The Fabian Society commissioned a GB-wide poll from YouGov with a specially-commissioned sub-group of the 125 seats in England and Wales where Labour came closest to winning in 2019. The survey was conducted on 8 to 13 December before the North Shropshire byelection and 668 people living in the Labour target seats took part. We found that Labour leads the Conservatives by nine percentage points in the 125 seats (Labour 43, Conservative 34). By contrast, at the 2019 election the Conservatives led in these seats by 12 points (Labour 37, Conservative 49).
The Tories are in big big trouble
6/1 Lab Maj looks value on those figures.
What does ex-MP Nick “Historical comparisons make it implausible that Labour will win an absolute majority at the next election” Palmer say?
If the election was tomorrow, sure. But I think there's an element of swingback to allow for, now that we are seeing some proper midterm swings. Still, 6/1 does look worth a nibble.
Apologies for the odd paragraphing in the header, which splits the narrative at random places rather than the two numbered blocks that I submitted, so it's a bit hard to read.
Ok, and to ydoethur FPT if he's around - sure, by all means use my text in a class. I have a much more detailed guide to how politics works and how to influence policy if anyone is interested (let me know at nickmp1 (at) aol.com).
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.
At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.
If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).
However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.
We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all, and won't be again for many years, unless the Tories were to entirely lose their Brexiter and populist wing, which seems a long way off, now ; the proportion of MP's from that wing actually increased at the last election, and they seem to be taking over the party.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
Firstly, the question as to whether our system does keep all the extremists out is at least arguable!
Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)
Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.
At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.
If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).
However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.
We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.
Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour
Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.
In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result
iirc in 2010 Brown offered to resign as the price of LibDem support but, well, the rest is history.
David Miliband might have won most seats though unlike Brown in 2010, who knows
On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.
The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)
I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.
I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.
The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.
Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?
Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.
And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.
It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).
Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.
That does sound perhaps the way to go.
Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -
Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?
Her lease comes to an end in March. She will not be renewing. She will be using the contacts she has amassed and the experience she has gained to move on to something else - as yet undecided. Certainly many of her customers - experienced professionals not prone to giving undeserved compliments - have said that she should have no difficulty getting something worthwhile and will succeed at whatever she does.
She did originally have plans to expand the venue - and had lots of ideas for it - and was thinking of getting someone to invest with her and she would move into being an overall manager rather than doing all the day to day stuff, having first built up the business and reputation. She has certainly done the latter but it is hard to see who would want to invest in this sector at such a time.
Though in reality it is - if you can get in at the right price - quite a good time to develop the venue. Where we live will soon be in the Lake District National Park, tourism is expanding and there is some government investment in the area. But another year of fighting to keep the place alive with all this uncertainty, no support, price increases etc - no, she's had enough of that. Time to take stock and do what is best for her.
Every pub landlord/lady in UK must be thinking that at the moment. Sad times.
Every restaurant, cafe, travel business, hotel too. And many in the arts sector too.
It is indeed very sad.
I want to have a relaxing time at Xmas for her and her siblings above all. They have had a shitty two years. I am beyond depressed at this continuing.
Come to the Algarve; take your whole family.
It’s sunny and airy and nobody cares about the insane incompetence of Boris-land. There’s an element of surreal hysteria permeating the whole U.K. right now.
Seriously. My grief and stress collapsed the moment I exited Faro airport.
The hysteria is primarily driven by the dodgy data models and ministers too stupid to ask the right questions of the modellers. The scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts.
I part ways from you a bit on this.
I think the modellers are pushing out what they are asked to, and they have simply taken an agnostic approach to what remains an unconfirmed variable (“mildness”).
There are, I think, several questions which I haven’t seen good responses on.
1. Why is there not more sensitivity analysis around the four or five key variables? Although it would simply increase the confidence intervals wider, it would give a fuller picture to decision makers.
2. How confident are modellers on the impact of further restrictions, given the known speed and infectiousness of Omicron.
3. The relationships between peak day versus total wave deaths, and the extent to which restrictions simply defer those deaths.
4. The impact on hospital capacity, and the impact on non-Covid health services
5. The cost of restrictions, which must be weighed against any impact.
So the mildness is now "confirmed" by a UK study looking into how Omicron operates within the respiratory system, it seems to have a big advantage in the upper tract (which is why we get coughs an sore throats) but also a big disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract (which is why few people in SA needed mechanical ventilation or oxygen). That finding was thrown out by the modellers and they used the assumption that Omicron manifests identical symptoms and severity to Delta.
1. It won't lead to decisions being made, so they don't do it. 2. They say it would halt it, but other models non-SAGE and non-UK disagree and say Omicron takes to well to the nasal pathways to avoid infections even with very low social interaction. 3. Interesting exercise, not carried out 4. They say it will be a disaster, but they also threw out the evidence that Omicron requires less intense use of healthcare services due to having a big disadvantage in lung tissue compared to delta, so who knows whether it actually will. Experiences in SA vs the SA delta wave are quite favourable, average length of stay is down, use of mechanical ventilation is down, need for oxygen is down and survival rates are up. That could be explained by lots of factors though. 5. The big one I guess, the Bank is no longer going to simply print Rishi £40bn per month of restrictions so the money will need to be raised through tax. Can the UK really afford an additional £40bn in tax for COVID measures to continue indefinitely?
The reason I'm unconvinced by the models is because we have to key observations from Omicron, vaccine efficacy is between 93% and 95% with three doses against severe disease and a UK study showing that it has a disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract and a big advantage in the upper respiratory tract. The SAGE models used modelled vaccine efficacy of 85% rather than the observed VE of 93-95% and as I said above they also gave Omicron identical disease characteristics to Delta, which we now know not to be true.
To me it feels like the scientists (or at least whoever has asked for these specific scenarios to be modelled) are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown. Using modelled rather than observed VE is weird and throwing out favourable data and replacing it with unfavourable data is also weird. It also helps them get to the conclusion that we need to lockdown yesterday. Changing those inputs would result in a very large decrease all of their scary numbers, I wonder whether any of the Cabinet will force the issue and ask for the models to be redone with the correct inputs.
There will be a time lag between the results from models and the current knowledge. Take the UK study into how Omicron affects the upper respiratory system. You cannot just plug that into the model: you need to ask a whole series of questions. Is it relevant? What's the effect in people? Are there other effects? Is this study likely to be accurate? How do you account for this new information in the model? You then need run the models, discuss what the results, and disseminate.
The study was only reported on in the last day or so (following on from the HK study four or five days ago); it's a bit much to expect it to be factored into decision making immediately.
I think stating that scientists are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown is unsubstantiated.
You plug it in as a scenario, though. I'm not saying that it should be used as the central forecast, but they should at least be saying "this could also happen according to our latest studies on Omicron symptoms".
In a situation that we're in with decision making needing the best available data I'd say that plugging in the latest and most up to date information into models is absolutely necessary. If we lockdown for whatever period at a cost of £8bn per week to the economy and, yes, it turns out that Omicron hospitalises at a significantly lower rate because of the mechanism outlined in multiple studies that were known at the time then it's on whoever decided to throw those findings out and use assumed rather than observed data.
But as I said: if it's the UK study I think you're referring to, then it was released (or reported) yesterday. The idea that it should have been in models and influencing decisions before today is, I think, rather optimistic. I mean, there's using up-to-date information, and then there's chucking anything at the models like a rabid monkey with diarrhoea.
Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.
To those looking for a source for the recall thing, text to Labour MPs from the whips office. Sure it will be appearing on journo's twitter feed shortly.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.
At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.
If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).
However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.
We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.
Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour
This would need a total PR-led realignment, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ; Greens/Labour Left/Remnants of LD left , Right of the LD's/Right of Labour/Tory Centrists, and finally former Tory Brexiters/populists/Refuk etc on the right.
All this would be dependent on a complete realignment, though. In the near term for the next parliament, especially before any PR realignment, the only possible co-operations are Tory/Refuk, and Labour/LD/Green, I think, and one of those is what I expect to see happen.
To those looking for a source for the recall thing, text to Labour MPs from the whips office. Sure it will be appearing on journo's twitter feed shortly.
But they are only 6 mins into this cabinet meeting?
To those looking for a source for the recall thing, text to Labour MPs from the whips office. Sure it will be appearing on journo's twitter feed shortly.
But they are only 6 mins into this cabinet meeting?
OT, but there may be people who can advise, given the collective knowledge round here.
I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.
I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.
I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)
I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.
The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.
Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?
Have you asked your local vicar for advice? They often have to deal with confusing registry office cockups. They may know of a way through this.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.
At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.
If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).
However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.
We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.
Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour
This would need a total PR-led realignment, though, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ; Greens/Labour Left/Remnants of LD left , Right of the LD's/Right of Labour/Tory Centrists, and finally former Tory Brexiters/Refuk etc on the right.
All this would be dependent on a complete realignment, though. In the next parliament, especiallu before any PR realignment, the only possible co-operations would be Tory/Refuk, and Labour/LD, and that's what I expect to happen.
PR would totally end the 2 party dominated system, no doubt, there would be a realignment along the lines you suggest.
Under FPTP the LDs would generally go with Labour post Brexit and RefUK with the Tories, though as I said below I think if Sunak became PM and was just short of a majority Davey might keep him in office. Remember most LD seats now were Tory held in 2015, in 2010 a lot of LD seats had had Labour MPs, there are none where that applies now except St Albans and that was only under Blair
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
OT, but there may be people who can advise, given the collective knowledge round here.
I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.
I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.
I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)
I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.
The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.
Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?
I have to ask - what are you asked to provide to confirm you have the right to work in the UK - as that would have the same issue...
I think I'd be OK with PR for Westminster elections, as long as it was national PR with a 5% threshold, to keep the nationalists out of Parliament forever.
UKIP got 12% in 2015 and would have won seats even with a 5% threshold
Those are not the nationalists I'm not looking for.
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
Firstly, the question as to whether our system does keep all the extremists out is at least arguable!
Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)
Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.
I think that's a fair argument. I'm not sure it's one I necessarily agree with, as I think the main thing that keeps the fascists out in Germany is a cultural memory rather than the 5% bar. In the UK, I think it would be far easier for an openly fascist party to poll as much as 10% of the electorate. Sad, terrifying, but I think that's where we could end up.
FPTP encourages parties to tilt to the centre ground, whereas PR offers no such compunctions. So at the minute, you have parties like UKIP or Reform being at the extreme right of the spectrum, but leaning in as much as possible to scoop up more moderate votes if they can. I worry you might get more BNP or Golden Dawn style parties picking up serious numbers of votes under PR.
On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.
The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)
I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.
I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.
The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.
Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?
Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.
And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.
It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).
Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.
That does sound perhaps the way to go.
Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -
Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?
Her lease comes to an end in March. She will not be renewing. She will be using the contacts she has amassed and the experience she has gained to move on to something else - as yet undecided. Certainly many of her customers - experienced professionals not prone to giving undeserved compliments - have said that she should have no difficulty getting something worthwhile and will succeed at whatever she does.
She did originally have plans to expand the venue - and had lots of ideas for it - and was thinking of getting someone to invest with her and she would move into being an overall manager rather than doing all the day to day stuff, having first built up the business and reputation. She has certainly done the latter but it is hard to see who would want to invest in this sector at such a time.
Though in reality it is - if you can get in at the right price - quite a good time to develop the venue. Where we live will soon be in the Lake District National Park, tourism is expanding and there is some government investment in the area. But another year of fighting to keep the place alive with all this uncertainty, no support, price increases etc - no, she's had enough of that. Time to take stock and do what is best for her.
Every pub landlord/lady in UK must be thinking that at the moment. Sad times.
Every restaurant, cafe, travel business, hotel too. And many in the arts sector too.
It is indeed very sad.
I want to have a relaxing time at Xmas for her and her siblings above all. They have had a shitty two years. I am beyond depressed at this continuing.
Come to the Algarve; take your whole family.
It’s sunny and airy and nobody cares about the insane incompetence of Boris-land. There’s an element of surreal hysteria permeating the whole U.K. right now.
Seriously. My grief and stress collapsed the moment I exited Faro airport.
The hysteria is primarily driven by the dodgy data models and ministers too stupid to ask the right questions of the modellers. The scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts.
I part ways from you a bit on this.
I think the modellers are pushing out what they are asked to, and they have simply taken an agnostic approach to what remains an unconfirmed variable (“mildness”).
There are, I think, several questions which I haven’t seen good responses on.
1. Why is there not more sensitivity analysis around the four or five key variables? Although it would simply increase the confidence intervals wider, it would give a fuller picture to decision makers.
2. How confident are modellers on the impact of further restrictions, given the known speed and infectiousness of Omicron.
3. The relationships between peak day versus total wave deaths, and the extent to which restrictions simply defer those deaths.
4. The impact on hospital capacity, and the impact on non-Covid health services
5. The cost of restrictions, which must be weighed against any impact.
So the mildness is now "confirmed" by a UK study looking into how Omicron operates within the respiratory system, it seems to have a big advantage in the upper tract (which is why we get coughs an sore throats) but also a big disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract (which is why few people in SA needed mechanical ventilation or oxygen). That finding was thrown out by the modellers and they used the assumption that Omicron manifests identical symptoms and severity to Delta.
1. It won't lead to decisions being made, so they don't do it. 2. They say it would halt it, but other models non-SAGE and non-UK disagree and say Omicron takes to well to the nasal pathways to avoid infections even with very low social interaction. 3. Interesting exercise, not carried out 4. They say it will be a disaster, but they also threw out the evidence that Omicron requires less intense use of healthcare services due to having a big disadvantage in lung tissue compared to delta, so who knows whether it actually will. Experiences in SA vs the SA delta wave are quite favourable, average length of stay is down, use of mechanical ventilation is down, need for oxygen is down and survival rates are up. That could be explained by lots of factors though. 5. The big one I guess, the Bank is no longer going to simply print Rishi £40bn per month of restrictions so the money will need to be raised through tax. Can the UK really afford an additional £40bn in tax for COVID measures to continue indefinitely?
The reason I'm unconvinced by the models is because we have to key observations from Omicron, vaccine efficacy is between 93% and 95% with three doses against severe disease and a UK study showing that it has a disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract and a big advantage in the upper respiratory tract. The SAGE models used modelled vaccine efficacy of 85% rather than the observed VE of 93-95% and as I said above they also gave Omicron identical disease characteristics to Delta, which we now know not to be true.
To me it feels like the scientists (or at least whoever has asked for these specific scenarios to be modelled) are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown. Using modelled rather than observed VE is weird and throwing out favourable data and replacing it with unfavourable data is also weird. It also helps them get to the conclusion that we need to lockdown yesterday. Changing those inputs would result in a very large decrease all of their scary numbers, I wonder whether any of the Cabinet will force the issue and ask for the models to be redone with the correct inputs.
There will be a time lag between the results from models and the current knowledge. Take the UK study into how Omicron affects the upper respiratory system. You cannot just plug that into the model: you need to ask a whole series of questions. Is it relevant? What's the effect in people? Are there other effects? Is this study likely to be accurate? How do you account for this new information in the model? You then need run the models, discuss what the results, and disseminate.
The study was only reported on in the last day or so (following on from the HK study four or five days ago); it's a bit much to expect it to be factored into decision making immediately.
I think stating that scientists are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown is unsubstantiated.
You plug it in as a scenario, though. I'm not saying that it should be used as the central forecast, but they should at least be saying "this could also happen according to our latest studies on Omicron symptoms".
In a situation that we're in with decision making needing the best available data I'd say that plugging in the latest and most up to date information into models is absolutely necessary. If we lockdown for whatever period at a cost of £8bn per week to the economy and, yes, it turns out that Omicron hospitalises at a significantly lower rate because of the mechanism outlined in multiple studies that were known at the time then it's on whoever decided to throw those findings out and use assumed rather than observed data.
But as I said: if it's the UK study I think you're referring to, then it was released (or reported) yesterday. The idea that it should have been in models and influencing decisions before today is, I think, rather optimistic. I mean, there's using up-to-date information, and then there's chucking anything at the models like a rabid monkey with diarrhoea.
Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.
I don't think the criticism is directed at the scientists as much as the civil servants who brief them and the politicians who are ill-equipped to interrogate them.
An informal arrangement for Lab not to compete hard in the top ?50 LD seats (and vice versa) is a necessity.
Greens are tactically irrelevant, and their voters are harder to redirect anyway. Lab needs a “big offer” to students to attract younger voters away from them.
Lab and LD can’t afford to touch SNP with a barge-pole, indeed they need to take them head on in Scotland by portraying them as the Tory’s secret weapon.
Look how well that's worked for SLab for the last 40 years.
I'd suggest such a tack for the SLDs might be less than fruitful, insofar as anyone gives a fcuk what they think.
'I can work with Tories to save the Union, says Lib Dems’ next leader Alex Cole-Hamilton'
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
Firstly, the question as to whether our system does keep all the extremists out is at least arguable!
Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)
Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.
Also, would a Conservative led government with UKIP + DUP support have been much worse than what we had in 2015? There was a Conservative + DUP government after 2017 anyway.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.
That is what I said in my original comment.
"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."
Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result. It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.
If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.
Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.
You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.
Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.
At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.
If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).
However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.
We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.
I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.
Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour
This would need a total PR-led realignment, though, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ; Greens/Labour Left/Remnants of LD left , Right of the LD's/Right of Labour/Tory Centrists, and finally former Tory Brexiters/Refuk etc on the right.
All this would be dependent on a complete realignment, though. In the next parliament, especiallu before any PR realignment, the only possible co-operations would be Tory/Refuk, and Labour/LD, and that's what I expect to happen.
PR would totally end the 2 party dominated system, no doubt, there would be a realignment along the lines you suggest.
Under FPTP the LDs would generally go with Labour post Brexit and RefUK with the Tories, though as I said below I think if Sunak became PM and was just short of a majority Davey might keep him in office. Remember most LD seats now were Tory held in 2015, in 2010 a lot of LD seats had had Labour MPs, there are none where that applies now except St Albans and that was only under Blair
This is only the point where I fundamentally differ with what you're saying ; I just don't think LIb-Tory co-operation is a possibility in the foreseeable future, and under FPTP. The LD's now have huge numbers of tribally Remainy / metropolitan voters, just for a start .
Sunak would need to something like a major about-face on Brexit, for example, and I just can't see something like that happening given that he's a long-established Brexiter now.
BORIS Johnson is not preparing to announce any more Covid restrictions today despite summoning a crunch Cabinet meeting, The Sun understands.
The PM is pressing pause on a press conference after top ministers demanded more time to examine the latest Omicron data before rubber-stamping any fresh curbs they fear will take a sledgehammer to Christmas.
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
One thing I am sure of is that the opposition has grown, both in number but also in determination. It may still be the minority view, but those opposed to lockdown are now much more vocal and bolshy
Large parts of the lockdown support comes from people for whom it makes no difference. Opposition can be a minority and yet render it meaningless if all the people who actually go out crack on.
Is it true though? Lots of cancellations are reported by restaurants but surely these cancelled bookings were initially made by people who did want to go out.
No, subtle difference here - these are people adjusting their behaviour according to their own calibration of risk (and largely, it's 'will I miss my first family Christmas since 2019 by catching covid' rather than 'will I die?'). That doesn't mean they wish to be prevented from going out. I would expect, left to our own devices, we would see a significant reduction in R, probably to less than 1, by Christmas, simply through this alone. Of course, left to our own devices, R would then go up again afterwards as people would self-police less rigorously with fewer specific events to avoid covid for. (All of which of course ignores other impacts on R from boosters etc.)
Yep this is exactly it. No one wants to risk being prevented from seeing family before Christmas because they have caught something that, whilst it will do them no great harm, would make it illegal for them to see loved ones. Also, in spite of the Government messages to the contrary, most people I know still think that if you are in contact with someone who has covid you have to isolate for a week. This is affecting a lot of people's behaviour.
Up to a point. There is quite a bit of motivation in between "doing no great harm" and a fear of illegality. And that is being too sick to participate in any kind of Christmas properly. No way you can have a jolly Christmas when you're in bed feeling too rough to get up. Whatever the government says or doesn't say or do.
BORIS Johnson is not preparing to announce any more Covid restrictions today despite summoning a crunch Cabinet meeting, The Sun understands.
The PM is pressing pause on a press conference after top ministers demanded more time to examine the latest Omicron data before rubber-stamping any fresh curbs they fear will take a sledgehammer to Christmas.
So we may be allowed Christmas, but forbidden New Year? And they honestly think triple-vaxxed people, pre-tested with lateral flows, will just toast 2022 alone at home? When the government partied when NO ONE was vaccinated and daily deaths were over 1,000.
Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.
Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.
One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.
Firstly, the question as to whether our system does keep all the extremists out is at least arguable!
Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)
Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.
I think that's a fair argument. I'm not sure it's one I necessarily agree with, as I think the main thing that keeps the fascists out in Germany is a cultural memory rather than the 5% bar. In the UK, I think it would be far easier for an openly fascist party to poll as much as 10% of the electorate. Sad, terrifying, but I think that's where we could end up.
FPTP encourages parties to tilt to the centre ground, whereas PR offers no such compunctions. So at the minute, you have parties like UKIP or Reform being at the extreme right of the spectrum, but leaning in as much as possible to scoop up more moderate votes if they can. I worry you might get more BNP or Golden Dawn style parties picking up serious numbers of votes under PR.
Indeed, Hitler won most seats in Germany in 1932-33 under an electoral system that was part PR having used PR to get a foothold for the Nazis in the Reichstag earlier
On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.
The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)
I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.
I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.
The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.
Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?
Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.
And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.
It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).
Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.
That does sound perhaps the way to go.
Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -
Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?
Her lease comes to an end in March. She will not be renewing. She will be using the contacts she has amassed and the experience she has gained to move on to something else - as yet undecided. Certainly many of her customers - experienced professionals not prone to giving undeserved compliments - have said that she should have no difficulty getting something worthwhile and will succeed at whatever she does.
She did originally have plans to expand the venue - and had lots of ideas for it - and was thinking of getting someone to invest with her and she would move into being an overall manager rather than doing all the day to day stuff, having first built up the business and reputation. She has certainly done the latter but it is hard to see who would want to invest in this sector at such a time.
Though in reality it is - if you can get in at the right price - quite a good time to develop the venue. Where we live will soon be in the Lake District National Park, tourism is expanding and there is some government investment in the area. But another year of fighting to keep the place alive with all this uncertainty, no support, price increases etc - no, she's had enough of that. Time to take stock and do what is best for her.
Every pub landlord/lady in UK must be thinking that at the moment. Sad times.
Every restaurant, cafe, travel business, hotel too. And many in the arts sector too.
It is indeed very sad.
I want to have a relaxing time at Xmas for her and her siblings above all. They have had a shitty two years. I am beyond depressed at this continuing.
Come to the Algarve; take your whole family.
It’s sunny and airy and nobody cares about the insane incompetence of Boris-land. There’s an element of surreal hysteria permeating the whole U.K. right now.
Seriously. My grief and stress collapsed the moment I exited Faro airport.
The hysteria is primarily driven by the dodgy data models and ministers too stupid to ask the right questions of the modellers. The scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts.
I part ways from you a bit on this.
I think the modellers are pushing out what they are asked to, and they have simply taken an agnostic approach to what remains an unconfirmed variable (“mildness”).
There are, I think, several questions which I haven’t seen good responses on.
1. Why is there not more sensitivity analysis around the four or five key variables? Although it would simply increase the confidence intervals wider, it would give a fuller picture to decision makers.
2. How confident are modellers on the impact of further restrictions, given the known speed and infectiousness of Omicron.
3. The relationships between peak day versus total wave deaths, and the extent to which restrictions simply defer those deaths.
4. The impact on hospital capacity, and the impact on non-Covid health services
5. The cost of restrictions, which must be weighed against any impact.
So the mildness is now "confirmed" by a UK study looking into how Omicron operates within the respiratory system, it seems to have a big advantage in the upper tract (which is why we get coughs an sore throats) but also a big disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract (which is why few people in SA needed mechanical ventilation or oxygen). That finding was thrown out by the modellers and they used the assumption that Omicron manifests identical symptoms and severity to Delta.
1. It won't lead to decisions being made, so they don't do it. 2. They say it would halt it, but other models non-SAGE and non-UK disagree and say Omicron takes to well to the nasal pathways to avoid infections even with very low social interaction. 3. Interesting exercise, not carried out 4. They say it will be a disaster, but they also threw out the evidence that Omicron requires less intense use of healthcare services due to having a big disadvantage in lung tissue compared to delta, so who knows whether it actually will. Experiences in SA vs the SA delta wave are quite favourable, average length of stay is down, use of mechanical ventilation is down, need for oxygen is down and survival rates are up. That could be explained by lots of factors though. 5. The big one I guess, the Bank is no longer going to simply print Rishi £40bn per month of restrictions so the money will need to be raised through tax. Can the UK really afford an additional £40bn in tax for COVID measures to continue indefinitely?
The reason I'm unconvinced by the models is because we have to key observations from Omicron, vaccine efficacy is between 93% and 95% with three doses against severe disease and a UK study showing that it has a disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract and a big advantage in the upper respiratory tract. The SAGE models used modelled vaccine efficacy of 85% rather than the observed VE of 93-95% and as I said above they also gave Omicron identical disease characteristics to Delta, which we now know not to be true.
To me it feels like the scientists (or at least whoever has asked for these specific scenarios to be modelled) are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown. Using modelled rather than observed VE is weird and throwing out favourable data and replacing it with unfavourable data is also weird. It also helps them get to the conclusion that we need to lockdown yesterday. Changing those inputs would result in a very large decrease all of their scary numbers, I wonder whether any of the Cabinet will force the issue and ask for the models to be redone with the correct inputs.
There will be a time lag between the results from models and the current knowledge. Take the UK study into how Omicron affects the upper respiratory system. You cannot just plug that into the model: you need to ask a whole series of questions. Is it relevant? What's the effect in people? Are there other effects? Is this study likely to be accurate? How do you account for this new information in the model? You then need run the models, discuss what the results, and disseminate.
The study was only reported on in the last day or so (following on from the HK study four or five days ago); it's a bit much to expect it to be factored into decision making immediately.
I think stating that scientists are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown is unsubstantiated.
You plug it in as a scenario, though. I'm not saying that it should be used as the central forecast, but they should at least be saying "this could also happen according to our latest studies on Omicron symptoms".
In a situation that we're in with decision making needing the best available data I'd say that plugging in the latest and most up to date information into models is absolutely necessary. If we lockdown for whatever period at a cost of £8bn per week to the economy and, yes, it turns out that Omicron hospitalises at a significantly lower rate because of the mechanism outlined in multiple studies that were known at the time then it's on whoever decided to throw those findings out and use assumed rather than observed data.
But as I said: if it's the UK study I think you're referring to, then it was released (or reported) yesterday. The idea that it should have been in models and influencing decisions before today is, I think, rather optimistic. I mean, there's using up-to-date information, and then there's chucking anything at the models like a rabid monkey with diarrhoea.
Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.
I don't think the criticism is directed at the scientists as much as the civil servants who brief them and the politicians who are ill-equipped to interrogate them.
Max certainly blames the scientists. E.g.: "the scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts." + more.
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.
I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.
It’s something that Cummings identified very early on in government. There’s a total lack of timely and accurate data reaching the decision-makers.
Yes, they probably need to dig deep into their pockets for a bunch of STEM PhDs, who have the opportunity to go into the City or tech company where £200k salaries are the norm.
How do you get electoral reform though? The AV referendum surely sets the rule that it is an issue on which therwilloftherpeople must be ascertained.
Just do it. No parliament can bind its successors
And no sane Government is going to call a referendum ever again.
Or least, if they do, set a benchmark like other countries do of 66% of the electorate
Which works until it doesn't. Imagine if the Brexit referendum had been set at needing 66% of the vote to leave. Remain would've 'won', [1] but at what cost?
What would Cameron have done to prevent a UKIP landslide come 2020 (or 2021 Covid)? Cancel future general elections?
[1] In this alternative universe, it may well have been even greater for Leave - 53 or 54% from the people who voted remain out of concern in our universe who could safely flip to leave in the other knowing Leave would never win.
Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see
Comments
Time will tell.
I do hope MI5 have been wise to how easily our nation can be undermined by a few anonymous technocrats.
Repeat
SRI LANKA IS OPEN
Cameron just asked a stupid question badly, Blair and Brown created the circumstances that made the result possible.
The only ones who might be upset about it would be those who never reconciled themselves to Brexit and were faced with their fantasies about rejoining being dashed. It is the Europhiles who always had the warped view of our relationship with the EU and thought we were more important than we really were and it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.
I think PR probably encourages the growth of such groups, which I don't think is necessarily healthy for democracy.
I would expect, left to our own devices, we would see a significant reduction in R, probably to less than 1, by Christmas, simply through this alone.
Of course, left to our own devices, R would then go up again afterwards as people would self-police less rigorously with fewer specific events to avoid covid for.
(All of which of course ignores other impacts on R from boosters etc.)
I think it far more likely that one or other of the major parties comes under the control of such people under the current system.
Nobody likes them
Everybody hates them
Guess they’ll go eat worms
Big fat juicy ones
Didn't happen.
And while it is true, we don't matter to the EU, the problem is it matters to us.
A lot.
Which is why Brexit is not 'done" and continues to consume its children at a rate of knots
The 18-year-old plays for Borussia Dortmund in Germany. where 94% of players are double vaccinated.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59729312
Good lad....he seems a highly impressive young individual.
This is not just any works meeting https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1472886053786771457/video/1
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10328737/Was-Downing-Street-lockdown-party-snap-taken-No-11-balcony.html
The only illusions I have had shattered is that I thought the UK was a leading country repected across the world whereas it has turned out to be a small nation in slow decline with an incompetent govt led by a clown.
Hobnobs maker warns biscuit prices set to soar
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59728325
The firm, which is owned by Pladis Global, said brands such as Jaffa Cakes, Penguins and Hobnobs could go up in price by as much as 5%.
It was only you pro-EU fanatics who thought the UK mattered to the EU and that we could stay in and use our 'influence' to change it. Something that we had singularly failed to do for decades.
Anybody who knows anything about Scottish politics is fully aware of the appalling Lib-Lab failure to make their lies stick.
They really should try telling the truth for a change.
Also, perhaps it is time for a few scientists and engineers to be appointed to the House of Lords to act as role models.
Co operation with the Tories may damage the LDs under FPTP as there are fewer economic and social Orange Book style Liberal voters than social democratic and social liberal LD voters. Under PR however there would be plenty of LD and Tory deals, as well as LD and Labour deals.
However even under FPTP while the LDs would not touch Boris with a bargepole if the more Cameron like Sunak was Tory leader and say less than 10 seats from a majority with the Tories comfortably largest party then I would not be surprised to see Davey keep him in office. Remember too most LD held seats now voted for Cameron in 2015 and not a single one voted for Ed Miliband while many seats the LDs won in 2010 voted for Labour in 1997 and 2001
If anything it moves more into the Tory column as people can be swayed by a “coalition of chaos” narrative Lockdown is on folks.
I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.
I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.
I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)
I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.
The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.
Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?
Apologies for the odd paragraphing in the header, which splits the narrative at random places rather than the two numbered blocks that I submitted, so it's a bit hard to read.
Ok, and to ydoethur FPT if he's around - sure, by all means use my text in a class. I have a much more detailed guide to how politics works and how to influence policy if anyone is interested (let me know at nickmp1 (at) aol.com).
Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)
Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.
Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.
All this would be dependent on a complete realignment, though. In the near term for the next parliament, especially before any PR realignment, the only possible co-operations are Tory/Refuk, and Labour/LD/Green, I think, and one of those is what I expect to see happen.
6,734 new cases (people positive) reported, giving a total of 806,695.
No new deaths reported, giving a total of 9,781.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1472931299543429122?s=20
3756 last week....
Oh dear
Under FPTP the LDs would generally go with Labour post Brexit and RefUK with the Tories, though as I said below I think if Sunak became PM and was just short of a majority Davey might keep him in office. Remember most LD seats now were Tory held in 2015, in 2010 a lot of LD seats had had Labour MPs, there are none where that applies now except St Albans and that was only under Blair
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1472931790197305354?s=20
FPTP encourages parties to tilt to the centre ground, whereas PR offers no such compunctions. So at the minute, you have parties like UKIP or Reform being at the extreme right of the spectrum, but leaning in as much as possible to scoop up more moderate votes if they can. I worry you might get more BNP or Golden Dawn style parties picking up serious numbers of votes under PR.
The only other schism in Scotland is the pro- and anti-Tory split - that’s where Labour need to play.
If we need restrictions, put them in now. If we need them next week, do we really need them?
Sunak would need to something like a major about-face on Brexit, for example, and I just can't see something like that happening given that he's a long-established Brexiter now.
They will also surely be wary about being promised constitutional change after review, in 4 years etc. after their Coalition experience.
The danger for Starmer I see is that Lib Dems may want to reopen Brexit. Any sniff of that, and Boris Johnson can get the band back together again.
BORIS Johnson is not preparing to announce any more Covid restrictions today despite summoning a crunch Cabinet meeting, The Sun understands.
The PM is pressing pause on a press conference after top ministers demanded more time to examine the latest Omicron data before rubber-stamping any fresh curbs they fear will take a sledgehammer to Christmas.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/17092767/boris-johnson-no-announcement-today/
Have to say it would be seriously sick to fake this, but we do get some weirdos.
And that is being too sick to participate in any kind of Christmas properly.
No way you can have a jolly Christmas when you're in bed feeling too rough to get up. Whatever the government says or doesn't say or do.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1472933089072582666
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1472931790197305354
Oh ffs
My view is that this is incorrect.
Yes, they probably need to dig deep into their pockets for a bunch of STEM PhDs, who have the opportunity to go into the City or tech company where £200k salaries are the norm.
Big caveat is that Govt scientists want him to act now - while some in Cabinet worried about further restrictions even later. https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1472933272598499331/photo/1
BoZo can't do it, even if he wanted to
Imagine if the Brexit referendum had been set at needing 66% of the vote to leave.
Remain would've 'won', [1] but at what cost?
What would Cameron have done to prevent a UKIP landslide come 2020 (or 2021 Covid)? Cancel future general elections?
[1] In this alternative universe, it may well have been even greater for Leave - 53 or 54% from the people who voted remain out of concern in our universe who could safely flip to leave in the other knowing Leave would never win.
Just steal posts, I will do that going forwards
I'll do my best Ian Paisley impression: No! No! No!