Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
You can say what you like but ultimately these are the facts - vaccine efficacy is 93-95% according to the same report as their 85% figure comes from, the 85% number exists because a 6x extra dilution effect was added and Omicron has been modelled with identical manifestation of symptoms as Delta, something we know not to be true either.
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
It's something you don't want to say outloud but the models have been wrong once too often so are now hard to trust.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
Yeah, I think that's out of order. A bit tacky, and a little pointless.
It's pretty clear from that clip that Boris has lost control of the Covid response and it's the Cabinet who are now controlling the Covid response. He didn't spend half a day in there because he wanted to come out and say "no change". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
Those Gauteng figures are an absolute beaut today.
Another day of frankly reassuring data all round, still no sign of anything remotely exponential in London hospital data, in fact given what we already know of the rise in incidental admissions, the new figures are remarkably low.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
On the last point - no we didn't move to plan b quickly we ummed and ehhed for a week and plan b does sod all anyway to R0 levels.
So masks do sod all to R0?
Good to know. Why were people advocating for Plan B for so long if it does sod all then, and should we all drop our masks since they do sod all according to you?
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Decisions being taken through the prism of a Tory leadership contest are not decisions being taken in the best interests of the country.
Any political decision is taken through the prism of politics of one flavour or another.
Whatever Boris says, for example, Lab will oppose (although bizarrely not vote against). As is their duty. But to take masks as an example, look at the difference between the Lab Party conference (no masks) and sitting on the Opposition benches (masks). What does Lab think of mask wearing? We don't know as their actions are taken through the prism of furthering Labour's political position.
Whatever decision Boris takes is subject to a vote in the HoC. 100 MPs defied him last time which means that over 200 supported him. Which is the more "popular" option for him then leadership-wise?
If there is no decision there cannot be a vote. That suits Johnson down to the ground - as well as those who want to replace him.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
On the last point - no we didn't move to plan b quickly we ummed and ehhed for a week and plan b does sod all anyway to R0 levels.
Sunak needs to do something now on pubs and restaurants or there will be none left to reopen in the new year.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
You can say what you like but ultimately these are the facts - vaccine efficacy is 93-95% according to the same report as their 85% figure comes from, the 85% number exists because a 6x extra dilution effect was added and Omicron has been modelled with identical manifestation of symptoms as Delta, something we know not to be true either.
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
I'm not trying to downplay anything: I'm trying to show why Nelson's article is a little wrong-headed in its attack line.
It's pretty clear from that clip that Boris has lost control of the Covid response and it's the Cabinet who are now controlling the Covid response. He didn't spend half a day in there because he wanted to come out and say "no change". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was mainly Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
Yeah, I think that's out of order. A bit tacky, and a little pointless.
Have they hit one million
Yep, and it's a great achievement. I was talking about the presence of the Conservative Party logo (I'll forgive the colours).
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
Its not pointless when the decision makers are deciding whether to do nothing or to do something. The decision makers should have all relevant data regarding what happens if they do nothing and what happens if they do something.
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
Are you saying they're unaware there are scenarios where they need to do nothing? Really? The important thing they need to know from this modelling is: if it goes to sh*t, how much in the sh*t does it go?
If all the scenarios that are presented to them say they need to do something, then yes they could be unaware that there are other scenarios. That's why accurate scenarios should be presented.
The important thing to know from the modelling is: What do we expect to happen?
A further question to answer is: If it goes to shit, how much in the shit does it go. But that's a second question, not the first one.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less therefore
I was talking about this "Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now". That was wrong, as I have shown.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
Wow. Well hat-tip to @HYUFD who said that Boris was now dependent on the cabinet and that the cabinet wouldn't accept further restrictions.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
On the last point - no we didn't move to plan b quickly we ummed and ehhed for a week and plan b does sod all anyway to R0 levels.
Sunak needs to do something now on pubs and restaurants or there will be none left to reopen in the new year.
He's trying to keep them open.
If you want to permanently screw up pubs and restaurants you force them to close - if you keep them open you just need to work out how to support them a while longer - say by keeping VAT at 5% for a while more (that makes sense for inflation reasons anyway).
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
Its not pointless when the decision makers are deciding whether to do nothing or to do something. The decision makers should have all relevant data regarding what happens if they do nothing and what happens if they do something.
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
Are you saying they're unaware there are scenarios where they need to do nothing? Really? The important thing they need to know from this modelling is: if it goes to sh*t, how much in the sh*t does it go?
If all the scenarios that are presented to them say they need to do something, then yes they could be unaware that there are other scenarios. That's why accurate scenarios should be presented.
The important thing to know from the modelling is: What do we expect to happen?
A further question to answer is: If it goes to shit, how much in the shit does it go. But that's a second question, not the first one.
"What do we expect to happen" is probabilities. What we're talking about is what realistically *may* happen.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
You can say what you like but ultimately these are the facts - vaccine efficacy is 93-95% according to the same report as their 85% figure comes from, the 85% number exists because a 6x extra dilution effect was added and Omicron has been modelled with identical manifestation of symptoms as Delta, something we know not to be true either.
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
I'm not trying to downplay anything: I'm trying to show why Nelson's article is a little wrong-headed in its attack line.
No, he's exactly right. The manner in which the modelled scenarios are being presented and run makes them untrustworthy and big shock, the Cabinet of Boris stooges has just rejected them and him because they aren't credible.
If the DoH hadn't tried to play silly buggers on the models and presented the most likely scenarios which are still pretty bad Cabinet may have signed off on guidance or some transmission reduction measures over the next week. Instead they tried to play games with the models and scenarios and found themselves unable to defend why they aren't using known data points for inputs.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was mainly Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less
The leakage to Labour and LDems is the return of their voters now Corbyn has gone. I suspect the Tory to Reform voter swing hasn't really started yet.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
Its not pointless when the decision makers are deciding whether to do nothing or to do something. The decision makers should have all relevant data regarding what happens if they do nothing and what happens if they do something.
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
Are you saying they're unaware there are scenarios where they need to do nothing? Really? The important thing they need to know from this modelling is: if it goes to sh*t, how much in the sh*t does it go?
If all the scenarios that are presented to them say they need to do something, then yes they could be unaware that there are other scenarios. That's why accurate scenarios should be presented.
The important thing to know from the modelling is: What do we expect to happen?
A further question to answer is: If it goes to shit, how much in the shit does it go. But that's a second question, not the first one.
"What do we expect to happen" is probabilities. What we're talking about is what realistically *may* happen.
You haven't been listening...
I have been listening and what may happen includes those scenarios where no lockdown is necessary and where lockdown would be tremendously damaging for no benefit.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less therefore
I was talking about this "Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now". That was wrong, as I have shown.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Decisions being taken through the prism of a Tory leadership contest are not decisions being taken in the best interests of the country.
Any political decision is taken through the prism of politics of one flavour or another.
Whatever Boris says, for example, Lab will oppose (although bizarrely not vote against). As is their duty. But to take masks as an example, look at the difference between the Lab Party conference (no masks) and sitting on the Opposition benches (masks). What does Lab think of mask wearing? We don't know as their actions are taken through the prism of furthering Labour's political position.
Whatever decision Boris takes is subject to a vote in the HoC. 100 MPs defied him last time which means that over 200 supported him. Which is the more "popular" option for him then leadership-wise?
If there is no decision there cannot be a vote. That suits Johnson down to the ground - as well as those who want to replace him.
Look I think Johnson is a tosser and had it not been for one J Corbyn I might well have voted Lab or LD to oppose the Cons in 2019, from whom I resigned last year.
So I don't give a tuppenny fuck about his leadership but I do agree with his instincts on not locking down/further restrictions. Likewise Steve Baker - Brexit disagreed with him but am foursquare behind his views on liberty and the further restrictions thereof.
This might be a party political thing but it is incidentally one and we can all throw him (or his successor) out next time round, which, according to the polls, it seems we may well be doing.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
Wow. Well hat-tip to @HYUFD who said that Boris was now dependent on the cabinet and that the cabinet wouldn't accept further restrictions.
If Dom was still around the entire Cabinet would have been sacked tonight and replaced with new people who willing to do their master's work.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
That's what confidence intervals etc are for.
Considering the cost of what is being proposed, the scenarios where action isn't necessary absolutely should be included in the information before acting.
Confidence intervals are useless when you tell me with 95% confidence that the result is somewhere between 0 and infinity.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less therefore
I was talking about this "Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now". That was wrong, as I have shown.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
Wow. Well hat-tip to @HYUFD who said that Boris was now dependent on the cabinet and that the cabinet wouldn't accept further restrictions.
If Dom was still around the entire Cabinet would have been sacked tonight and replaced with new people who willing to do their master's work.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was mainly Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less
The leakage to Labour and LDems is the return of their voters now Corbyn has gone. I suspect the Tory to Reform voter swing hasn't really started yet.
Is Reform likely to go anywhere? It seems unlikely to me especially after their p*ss poor performance in Bexley and Shropshire. There is a big difference between reform and brexit/ukip.
I think reform has a lot of crossover with the reviews of Tory party members and mps but not necessarily voters.
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less therefore
I was talking about this "Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now". That was wrong, as I have shown.
I'm going to be generous and say the lead position is about the same. It is certainly not "much bigger" now.
However even if that is the case it was easier for the Tories to reclaim voters lost in 2019 as most of them had just gone to the BXP. Now most of them have gone the full way and crossed over to Labour or the LDs which will be harder to win back.
If Boris did a lockdown too, which thankfully the Cabinet seems to have put the brakes on, he would lose voters to RefUK too on top of that in which case the Labour lead certainly would end up bigger than over May in 2019
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
And a ComRes one, and several with a 9% lead. Your assertion was wrong.
That Spring 2019 ComRes poll had the Brexit Party on 20% so my assertion the leakage then was mainly Tory to Brexit Party as opposed to the leakage now being mainly Tory to Labour/LD was correct.
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less
The leakage to Labour and LDems is the return of their voters now Corbyn has gone. I suspect the Tory to Reform voter swing hasn't really started yet.
Is Reform likely to go anywhere? It seems unlikely to me especially after their p*ss poor performance in Bexley and Shropshire. There is a big difference between reform and brexit/ukip.
I think reform has a lot of crossover with the reviews of Tory party members and mps but not necessarily voters.
Depends really, are the voters likely to care about letting in Labour in accidentally?
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
That's what confidence intervals etc are for.
Considering the cost of what is being proposed, the scenarios where action isn't necessary absolutely should be included in the information before acting.
Confidence intervals are useless when you tell me with 95% confidence that the result is somewhere between 0 and infinity.
It would be but it isn't because that is not the situation we are discussing. You are straying dangerously close to reductio ad absurdum
"The problem of the [restrictions] now is that they are much, much harder than on the people than they were in 2020. We have people who have missed two years of education, or had it adapted; we have loneliness, we have mental health challenges, we have people waiting for medical procedures, including all the economic harms..."
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
You’re probably right - although I do wonder. Keir has cut through more clearly than previously over the past few weeks, with a pretty clear message (lock down now). It may stick even in the latter scenario above.
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
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.
Why the heck do they need PhDs? Just compete with the audit/consulting/non-banking financial services firms for ordinary maths/econ/natsci bachelors, rather than the current situation of everyone having PPE from Oxford/Durham (uninformed stereotype alert). Starting salaries 25k-40k, rising to 50k-100k within ~5 years. Or is even that pricing themselves out the game?
The lack of Cambridge and promotion of Durham is going to put you in @TSE 's bad books.
But in reality if you want great people you need to pay them and the civil service isn't structured in a way that makes that possible - general IT has similar issues...
"Starting salaries for the three agencies - GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - are in the region of £25,000 to £35,000, plus benefits. There are opportunities to progress to higher grades, with salaries reaching around £40,000 after five to ten years' service."
This isn't exactly going to attract the best and the brightest.....
How on earth does 007 afford his Savile Row suits and Omega watches then? He must have a heck of an expense account...
Only child, parents both deceased, went to Eton, Rolex (not omega) supplied by q branch
Ah, Bond has been an Omega man since the 90s. Perhaps expensive product placement deals are how he supplements his income
Listening to Johnson's address, the word "please" was far overused when it comes to those who are still unvaccinated.
Listening to R5 Live's phone in earlier, I was struck by just how much hostility and anger there is now to those self indulgent idiots. Caller after caller wanted some form of additional restrictions that made life difficult for the unvaccinated.
People expect governments to act, not to plead. "Please" won't do any longer.
Johnson has totally misjudged the public mood and there is a political opportunity there for Starmer. Anything along the lines of a statement that "it's time to take on the anti-vaxxers" will do.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Do they still have exam questions on 'Prime Ministerial Government' and the decline of the Cabinet? If they do, what a perfect and contemporary refutation that obviously won't appear in textbooks for years. I agree with you about Theresa May but was even she ever overruled by her colleagues to such an extent?
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
You’re probably right - although I do wonder. Keir has cut through more clearly than previously over the past few weeks, with a pretty clear message (lock down now). It may stick even in the latter scenario above.
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
Nobody remembers Brown was opposed to withdrawing from ERM or that Osborne advocated effectively letting the banks crash in 2007-08.
But nobody lets Lamont forget the former or Brown his blunders over the latter.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Do they still have exam questions on 'Prime Ministerial Government' and the decline of the Cabinet? If they do, what a perfect and contemporary refutation that obviously won't appear in textbooks for years. I agree with you about Theresa May but was even she ever overruled by her colleagues to such an extent?
Yes. As for your second point, that's why I create case study sheets!
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
Absolutely, and now we know they tried and play games with this stuff so it blew up on their faces. By excluding the most likely scenario from their presentations the DoH were trying to make any non-lockdown position as seeming to be "against the science". What's worse is that the way they've done it is essentially by setting the terms of what they wanted to present to the modellers meaning the likely and better scenarios never really get out there as part of the scientific consensus, only the doom models are in the reports.
I don't see how that informs decision making, quite the opposite, it's asking people to make life changing decisions based on only a narrow set of unlikely scenarios. I'd honestly be livid if I was another Cabinet minister, resignations by whoever it was setting the parameters of what the modellers are being asked for, at least.
The Government’s net competency rating is -30% in this week’s poll, representing a new lowest net competency rating we have recorded since we began tracking this question in August 2020. Altogether, 19% find the Government competent (down 1%), 49% find the Government incompetent (no change), and 27% find the Government neither competent nor incompetent (up 3%).
It’s not their competency rating that needs to fall, it’s their complacency rating they need to address.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
You’re probably right - although I do wonder. Keir has cut through more clearly than previously over the past few weeks, with a pretty clear message (lock down now). It may stick even in the latter scenario above.
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
I'd hate to have to make this kind of call too. Another reason to put people off politics. Though my vote at the next election will almost certainly be decided by it: the party who thinks we can, with impunity, tell us who we can and can't meet in our own houses won't have my vote.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
Listening to Johnson's address, the word "please" was far overused when it comes to those who are still unvaccinated.
Listening to R5 Live's phone in earlier, I was struck by just how much hostility and anger there is now to those self indulgent idiots. Caller after caller wanted some form of additional restrictions that made life difficult for the unvaccinated.
People expect governments to act, not to plead. "Please" won't do any longer.
Johnson has totally misjudged the public mood and there is a political opportunity there for Starmer. Anything along the lines of a statement that "it's time to take on the anti-vaxxers" will do.
Trouble is we keep being told by certain sections of the PB commentariat that populism is bad so I am not sure responding to the public mood is an acceptable political position these days.
Okay being facetious I know. Actually I agree with you.
It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Do they still have exam questions on 'Prime Ministerial Government' and the decline of the Cabinet? If they do, what a perfect and contemporary refutation that obviously won't appear in textbooks for years. I agree with you about Theresa May but was even she ever overruled by her colleagues to such an extent?
It does leave open the question - why was Cabinet meeting at all? As the only plausible item for an urgent drop everything cabinet meeting has to be a lockdown.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
"The problem of the [restrictions] now is that they are much, much harder than on the people than they were in 2020. We have people who have missed two years of education, or had it adapted; we have loneliness, we have mental health challenges, we have people waiting for medical procedures, including all the economic harms..."
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.
I wonder if this is why going forward, we will not see these kinds of majorities again. What is the point?
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Do they still have exam questions on 'Prime Ministerial Government' and the decline of the Cabinet? If they do, what a perfect and contemporary refutation that obviously won't appear in textbooks for years. I agree with you about Theresa May but was even she ever overruled by her colleagues to such an extent?
Yes. As for your second point, that's why I create case study sheets!
I had no doubt that you would but is that common among teachers: presumably examiners (and weren't you one?) will mark-up students who can sustain their argument through examples such as this?
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
You’re probably right - although I do wonder. Keir has cut through more clearly than previously over the past few weeks, with a pretty clear message (lock down now). It may stick even in the latter scenario above.
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
Nobody remembers Brown was opposed to withdrawing from ERM or that Osborne advocated effectively letting the banks crash in 2007-08.
But nobody lets Lamont forget the former or Brown his blunders over the latter.
Neither one is quite as personal as being imprisoned in your own home at the whim of a bunch of demented boffins with Excel workbooks run amok. But you are likely 100% right.
Hadn’t realised Osborne was so ballsy re: the Financial Crisis - he’s gone up in my estimation!
It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.
One has to admire the level of crashing and burning.
"The problem of the [restrictions] now is that they are much, much harder than on the people than they were in 2020. We have people who have missed two years of education, or had it adapted; we have loneliness, we have mental health challenges, we have people waiting for medical procedures, including all the economic harms..."
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Boris Johnson has now said that Covid hospitalisations are rising "quite steeply" in London – @NewStatesman Chart of the Day showed earlier that they're up by 42% in a week.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Do they still have exam questions on 'Prime Ministerial Government' and the decline of the Cabinet? If they do, what a perfect and contemporary refutation that obviously won't appear in textbooks for years. I agree with you about Theresa May but was even she ever overruled by her colleagues to such an extent?
Yes. As for your second point, that's why I create case study sheets!
I had no doubt that you would but is that common among teachers: presumably examiners (and weren't you one?) will mark-up students who can sustain their argument through examples such as this?
Yes. Without case studies you can't get beyond a C. That said they don't have to be contemporary. One of my case studies on Prime Ministerial policy making is for example the Poll Tax.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
You can say what you like but ultimately these are the facts - vaccine efficacy is 93-95% according to the same report as their 85% figure comes from, the 85% number exists because a 6x extra dilution effect was added and Omicron has been modelled with identical manifestation of symptoms as Delta, something we know not to be true either.
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
It's something you don't want to say outloud but the models have been wrong once too often so are now hard to trust.
Labour gains: Kensington Cities of London and Westminster Basingstoke
Thoughts?
My thoughts are that you are getting a bit over-excited. We are in febrile political times, and you are feverish at spell in which your side is winning. Remember, Boris almost certainly won't lead the conservatives into the next election.
You are as hyper now as you were woeful six months ago, and it's probably good for you to ease off a little; not least because placing large bets when you are hyper is unwise!
That's not to say that these won't happen. But please take care of yourself. Pleased you're on an upswing though.
"The problem of the [restrictions] now is that they are much, much harder than on the people than they were in 2020. We have people who have missed two years of education, or had it adapted; we have loneliness, we have mental health challenges, we have people waiting for medical procedures, including all the economic harms..."
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
I am a fan. Always reasonable and clear when I’ve heard him.
Boris Johnson has now said that Covid hospitalisations are rising "quite steeply" in London – @NewStatesman Chart of the Day showed earlier that they're up by 42% in a week.
Meaningless until we know what fraction is because of covid.
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
As a qualified nurse who (IIRC) volunteered at her local hospital during the earlier waves she probably has a relevant contribution to make.
The problem for Johnson is, even if he didn't intend to introduce further restrictions, this is going to be spun as Johnson caving to his cabinet.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Agreed. Although a clear dividing line now between the Conservatives and Labour on the need for lockdown now. One side or the other will come to regret it with hindsight…
If we need to lock down, Labour will say 'we told you so.'
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
You’re probably right - although I do wonder. Keir has cut through more clearly than previously over the past few weeks, with a pretty clear message (lock down now). It may stick even in the latter scenario above.
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
Nobody remembers Brown was opposed to withdrawing from ERM or that Osborne advocated effectively letting the banks crash in 2007-08.
But nobody lets Lamont forget the former or Brown his blunders over the latter.
Neither one is quite as personal as being imprisoned in your own home at the whim of a bunch of demented boffins with Excel workbooks run amok. But you are likely 100% right.
Hadn’t realised Osborne was so ballsy re: the Financial Crisis - he’s gone up in my estimation!
He said the banks should bail out each other, rather than the taxpayer doing it.
Which ironically is what Brown tried first with Lloyds taking over HBOS, but it didn't work.
"The problem of the [restrictions] now is that they are much, much harder than on the people than they were in 2020. We have people who have missed two years of education, or had it adapted; we have loneliness, we have mental health challenges, we have people waiting for medical procedures, including all the economic harms..."
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
I thought that was a good, balanced interview.
Yep totally agree. He didn't say we don't have a problem, but he understood that other factors are at play also. Very rare as far as I have heard from people in his position.
Especially as the prog started with "four professors" each calling for immediate further restrictions.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
Comments
https://twitter.com/jankell21032905/status/1472979170070351878?t=FdeAkqOfPCv8HWqKzIY0jA&s=19
Another day of frankly reassuring data all round, still no sign of anything remotely exponential in London hospital data, in fact given what we already know of the rise in incidental admissions, the new figures are remarkably low.
Good to know. Why were people advocating for Plan B for so long if it does sod all then, and should we all drop our masks since they do sod all according to you?
Most polls even before May resigned had Labour only with a 5% lead or less
Go Jeremy Corbyn, erh I mean Boris Johnson
The important thing to know from the modelling is: What do we expect to happen?
A further question to answer is: If it goes to shit, how much in the shit does it go. But that's a second question, not the first one.
Well hat-tip to @HYUFD who said that Boris was now dependent on the cabinet and that the cabinet wouldn't accept further restrictions.
If you want to permanently screw up pubs and restaurants you force them to close - if you keep them open you just need to work out how to support them a while longer - say by keeping VAT at 5% for a while more (that makes sense for inflation reasons anyway).
That's the benefit of being in the Opposition in the midterms, but its not a credible alternative government.
You haven't been listening...
If the DoH hadn't tried to play silly buggers on the models and presented the most likely scenarios which are still pretty bad Cabinet may have signed off on guidance or some transmission reduction measures over the next week. Instead they tried to play games with the models and scenarios and found themselves unable to defend why they aren't using known data points for inputs.
Which destroys what little was left of his authority.
I'd say in terms of political strength he's on a par with Theresa May at the end of 2018.
Those scenarios should be there too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1472978596914475010
So I don't give a tuppenny fuck about his leadership but I do agree with his instincts on not locking down/further restrictions. Likewise Steve Baker - Brexit disagreed with him but am foursquare behind his views on liberty and the further restrictions thereof.
This might be a party political thing but it is incidentally one and we can all throw him (or his successor) out next time round, which, according to the polls, it seems we may well be doing.
If we don't, everyone will quickly forget what they thought as the news cycle moves on and we feel general relief.
It's a win-win for them to push for further restrictions.
I think reform has a lot of crossover with the reviews of Tory party members and mps but not necessarily voters.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
If Boris did a lockdown too, which thankfully the Cabinet seems to have put the brakes on, he would lose voters to RefUK too on top of that in which case the Labour lead certainly would end up bigger than over May in 2019
Lib Dem gains:
Newbury
Guildford
Winchester
Labour gains:
Kensington
Cities of London and Westminster
Basingstoke
Thoughts?
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Professor Jason Leitch - National Clinical Director of the Scottish Government.
He gets it.
WatO today. Scotland has guidance only (as it stands).
I have to say I’d hate to have to make this kind of a call. A choice of two evils.
Listening to R5 Live's phone in earlier, I was struck by just how much hostility and anger there is now to those self indulgent idiots. Caller after caller wanted some form of additional restrictions that made life difficult for the unvaccinated.
People expect governments to act, not to plead. "Please" won't do any longer.
Johnson has totally misjudged the public mood and there is a political opportunity there for Starmer. Anything along the lines of a statement that "it's time to take on the anti-vaxxers" will do.
He won't be staying around if he goes and wallpapergate is still ongoing (which is very likely given current timescales).
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
But nobody lets Lamont forget the former or Brown his blunders over the latter.
However, we have three Christmases to the next GE and a week is a long time politics
And Starmer is as dull as dishwater
I don't see how that informs decision making, quite the opposite, it's asking people to make life changing decisions based on only a narrow set of unlikely scenarios. I'd honestly be livid if I was another Cabinet minister, resignations by whoever it was setting the parameters of what the modellers are being asked for, at least.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
Okay being facetious I know. Actually I agree with you.
Which is now no longer on the table.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Hadn’t realised Osborne was so ballsy re: the Financial Crisis - he’s gone up in my estimation!
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Boris Johnson has now said that Covid hospitalisations are rising "quite steeply" in London – @NewStatesman Chart of the Day showed earlier that they're up by 42% in a week.
We are in febrile political times, and you are feverish at spell in which your side is winning.
Remember, Boris almost certainly won't lead the conservatives into the next election.
You are as hyper now as you were woeful six months ago, and it's probably good for you to ease off a little; not least because placing large bets when you are hyper is unwise!
That's not to say that these won't happen. But please take care of yourself.
Pleased you're on an upswing though.
Which ironically is what Brown tried first with Lloyds taking over HBOS, but it didn't work.
Especially as the prog started with "four professors" each calling for immediate further restrictions.
London hospitals faced highest daily Covid admissions figures since late March on Friday (Dec 17)
220 Covid patients were admitted to hospital across LDN. March 31 fig was 225.
Hosp. admissions in week to Dec 18: 1,349
to Dec 11: 981
(up 37%)
https://twitter.com/mroliverbarnes/status/1472963545038049286
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?