"Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter: 'This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.
'They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.'
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, said on Twitter: 'I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?'
The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added: 'I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.'
I have seen an email from X to Y regarding ABC.
Y no longer has a copy of that email and it seems to have disappeared between 1st and 10th January following an instruction sent by XYZ.
I can see why that could be a problem to an police investigation - the odds of XYZ getting a fair trial after the publicity would be about 0.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
thoroughly bad decision in my view because flashing your lights should be parsed as an instruction to stick to the speed limit, and what is wrong with that?
Magistrates hmmm. Legally speaking, can this be used as a precedent in other cases?
It's rather a consequence of section 110 of the Highway Code: Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
Without that, it would be a very dubious decision, but given the (overly prescriptive IMO) rule, it's quite understandable.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
Sue Gray seems to have been exemplary in this
She's probably wishing she was back in that pub in Newry giving drinks to IRA men.
Ha! It recalls that old joke:
I used to work serving Guinness to violent terrorists, but my career got progressively worse from there.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
With all the talk of people being asked to delete messages, I find it rather amusing that actually deleting them is even technically possible. There should be backups of backups of every message ever sent through government IT systems.
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
"Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter: 'This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.
'They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.'
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, said on Twitter: 'I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?'
The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added: 'I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.'
I have seen an email from X to Y regarding ABC.
Y no longer has a copy of that email and it seems to have disappeared between 1st and 10th January following an instruction sent by XYZ.
I can see why that could be a problem to an police investigation - the odds of XYZ getting a fair trial after the publicity would be about 0.
Maybe, but that's not what the law says. You can report what you like up to the time XYZ is arrested or charged
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
Not at the moment leading to a Macron landslide though except against Zemmour. (who is now a poor 4th in first round polls)
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
Interesting ethical conundrum. Suppose a serial killer has killed nine people. It's only when he kills a tenth victim - getting careless and leaving some giveaway evidence - that he's apprehended by the police and convicted. If he hadn't killed the tenth he'd have gotten away Scot free. Is it ethically preferable for him to have killed the tenth victim or not?
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
There is a case in the news at the moment where a motorist reportedly rammed a knife-wielding assailant who was busily stabbing someone.
You might get an answer to your not-quite-so-hypothetical
With all the talk of people being asked to delete messages, I find it rather amusing that actually deleting them is even technically possible. There should be backups of backups of every message ever sent through government IT systems.
Unless we are talking about WhatsApp messages on personal phones, but why are those allowed near No.10 in the first place?
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is not the law. But he has I think said in Parliament that all the guidelines were followed. I strongly suspect that he - along with most of the police, many journalists and most of the country - doesn't understand the difference.
It's an interesting point.
With the enormous caveat of this being up to Tory MPs - and I doubt they'll remove him unless polls say they need to for their electoral prospects - I think the technical legalistic way to get him, if it does have a chance, is the Lying To Parliament angle.
He told the House he had no prior knowledge of rule-breaking events. This (for me) includes guidance since in common parlance guidance + law = "the Rules".
So unless Martin Reynolds is prepared to say either (i) that he didn't check the May 20th party with Johnson, or (ii) that he did but misrepresented it as being within the Rules, the Lying To Parliament charge sticks.
This point won't be dropped by Starmer regardless of the shenanigans with Gray and the Met.
Guidance is not rules. 🤦♂️
Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers and if laws have been broken he needs to go. But if no laws have been broken, then no rules have been broken. Guidance is guidance not a rule, the law is the rule.
There is a significant issue in relation to the police investigation which seems to be getting little attention. The penalty for breaches of the Covid regulations was a fixed penalty fine in the first instance. Pre-Covid the police/procurator fiscal/CPS had 6 months in which to intiate proceedings in respect of a fixed penalty. In Scotland, and presumably in England as well, that period was extended to 12 months in the Covid regulations.
This means, for example, that the police cannot charge anyone or issue any fixed penalties in relation to the alleged party on 20th May 2020. It is simply time barred. In which event why are the police investigating this at all and why is the supposed police investigation being allowed to interfere with Gray's report.
Interesting and is that why the Met declined to investigate previously, and maybe only serious breaches of the law will now be investigated
Destroying evidence and ordering same, for a start.
Once again - if Sue Gray found evidence of possible illegality, did she have any other option than reporting to the police? And the police have no other option, but to ask that evidence is not published until they have completed their investigation.....
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. But once again - deleting stuff from your phone or email before any police investigation has started does not generally amount to perverting the course of justice. See what the CPS has to say on the topic.
After it may do.
People are jumping to conclusions. And if the offence was time barred so no prosecution could have happened in any case what "course of justice" could anyone have been perverting anyway? These are complicated matters.
At a speed awareness course I attended, it was commented by the trainer that flashing your lights to warn an oncoming motorist of a speed trap ahead was illegal because it was perverting the course of justice. Smelling bullshit I asked if a man was running towards the trainer with a knife should I refrain from stopping him because I would be perverting the course of justice?
Interesting ethical conundrum. Suppose a serial killer has killed nine people. It's only when he kills a tenth victim - getting careless and leaving some giveaway evidence - that he's apprehended by the police and convicted. If he hadn't killed the tenth he'd have gotten away Scot free. Is it ethically preferable for him to have killed the tenth victim or not?
Seems obvious to me that it's better not to have a tenth person dead, although that would mean the families of the first nine victims are denied justice.
However, if you change the story slightly, and the tenth victim is the persistent police detective who wouldn't let the case lie, who died in the course of solving the crime, well, I wouldn't say they would have been best off leaving it alone. I'd say their achievement in solving the case was worth the risk that led to their death.
I see the top end of polling for SKS is irrelevant as all polling is meaningless at this stage of the electoral cycle while simultaneously the lower end is terrible for SKS cos he should be polling much higher at this stage of the electoral cycle.
38% for Labour after the last 3 months is very poor
Which is why the Tories, despite everything, can salvage a majority in 2024 with a new leader. Labour haven't sealed the deal with voters, but they don't want Boris to stay as PM.
For someone who posters on here revere for their super intelligence, confirmed by the fact that you read your undergraduate degree at the greatest University...in the world, you are sometimes not as politically astute as you should be.
Johnson remaining in office is good for all political parties except the Conservatives. Not so good for the rest of us, mind
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
Not at the moment leading to a Macron landslide though except against Zemmour. (who is now a poor 4th in first round polls)
Strong polling for Macron. Assuming Pecresse makes the runoff, how long does she have to convince supporters of other candidates to vote for her?
There is about 2 weeks between round 1 and the runoff.
Yes. assuming she does reach the runoff (and Pecresse is just about ahead of Le Pen for second behind Macron in round 1), then Pecresse would need to convince the vast majority of both Zemmour and Le Pen voters to turn out again and vote for her in the runoff to beat Macron.
Really worried about the direction things are moving in globally. BA.2 and BA.1.1. seem to be sweeping to dominance in different regions rapidly. Pandemic growth has also resumed in many places including England, & more recently Gauteng. A thread looking at the current evidence.
38% for Labour after the last 3 months is very poor
Which is why the Tories, despite everything, can salvage a majority in 2024 with a new leader. Labour haven't sealed the deal with voters, but they don't want Boris to stay as PM.
For someone who posters on here revere for their super intelligence, confirmed by the fact that you read your undergraduate degree at the greatest University...in the world, you are sometimes not as politically astute as you should be.
Johnson remaining in office is good for all political parties except the Conservatives. Not so good for the rest of us, mind
That depends, on current hypothetical polling Labour would win a majority against a Truss or Gove or Patel led Tories.
Sunak might have a chance of winning most seats at present, while Boris gets to a hung parliament too but with Labour most seats but Sunak would not win a majority either still
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
There's another superb piece from the excellent Nick Triggle today.
I'm not sure why the insightful and balanced Triggle is seemingly excluded from the BBC's main news programmes in favour of innumerate tabloid hacks, but there it is.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is not the law. But he has I think said in Parliament that all the guidelines were followed. I strongly suspect that he - along with most of the police, many journalists and most of the country - doesn't understand the difference.
It's an interesting point.
With the enormous caveat of this being up to Tory MPs - and I doubt they'll remove him unless polls say they need to for their electoral prospects - I think the technical legalistic way to get him, if it does have a chance, is the Lying To Parliament angle.
He told the House he had no prior knowledge of rule-breaking events. This (for me) includes guidance since in common parlance guidance + law = "the Rules".
So unless Martin Reynolds is prepared to say either (i) that he didn't check the May 20th party with Johnson, or (ii) that he did but misrepresented it as being within the Rules, the Lying To Parliament charge sticks.
This point won't be dropped by Starmer regardless of the shenanigans with Gray and the Met.
Guidance is not rules. 🤦♂️
Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers and if laws have been broken he needs to go. But if no laws have been broken, then no rules have been broken. Guidance is guidance not a rule, the law is the rule.
I'm talking about whether the Lying To Parliament charge has legs. TBH, this guy is so shameless that I doubt he'd resign anyway. It really is up to Tory MPs. Trouble is, they are shameless too, so they'll ditch him only if polls tell them their electoral prospects demand it. This is my increasingly firm take. Back him to survive, back Starmer Next PM, lay Sunak, Truss, Hunt.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
Not at the moment leading to a Macron landslide though except against Zemmour. (who is now a poor 4th in first round polls)
Strong polling for Macron. Assuming Pecresse makes the runoff, how long does she have to convince supporters of other candidates to vote for her?
There is about 2 weeks between round 1 and the runoff.
Yes. assuming she does reach the runoff (and Pecresse is just about ahead of Le Pen for second behind Macron in round 1), then Pecresse would need to convince the vast majority of both Zemmour and Le Pen voters to turn out again and vote for her in the runoff to beat Macron.
However if she does she could still win
Thanks. Presumably you are a Les Republicans supporter and would favour Pecresse?
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
Not at the moment leading to a Macron landslide though except against Zemmour. (who is now a poor 4th in first round polls)
Strong polling for Macron. Assuming Pecresse makes the runoff, how long does she have to convince supporters of other candidates to vote for her?
There is about 2 weeks between round 1 and the runoff.
Yes. assuming she does reach the runoff (and Pecresse is just about ahead of Le Pen for second behind Macron in round 1), then Pecresse would need to convince the vast majority of both Zemmour and Le Pen voters to turn out again and vote for her in the runoff to beat Macron.
However if she does she could still win
Thanks. Presumably you are a Les Republicans supporter and would favour Pecresse?
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
Thank you, Mr Ed, I accept the compliment with my usual lack of modesty.
You may well be right. I have stated here consistently that an 8 point deficit is nothing special for a mid-term government. The context is everything however. Labour is clawing its way back from a disastrous spell under Corbyn. Boris is unlikely to change. So I don't see the gap diminishing if he and Starmer carry on as they are doing at present.
But I could be calling this wrong, of course, as you point out.
My guess is that Boris will stay until after the May local elections and Starmer certainly doesn't want him out before then. Beyond that the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.
If whatever has been done cannot be prosecuted under:
(a) COVID restrictions, because these are time expired (b) perverting the course of justice, because any action taken before the law got involved is not in scope
then, what breaches could the police legitimately be investigating? Public office offences? Use of crown property offences?
Or are we saying we think this is an illegitimate investigation whose primary purpose may be to bury what, because of (a) and (b), remains fundamentally a workplace disciplinary issue?
And what does laying out these two possibilities, neither of which paint things in a good light, mean for Tory MPs whose letters were predicated on the Gray report?
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Starmer hasn't said this, but he could take this approach - in response to @Big_G_NorthWales' remark about Starmer being caught in a situation difficult to get out of. Basically imply that if the Met is blocking Sue Gray's report, it's because the situation is much more serious than we know about.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
Thank you, Mr Ed, I accept the compliment with my usual lack of modesty.
You may well be right. I have stated here consistently that an 8 point deficit is nothing special for a mid-term government. The context is everything however. Labour is clawing its way back from a disastrous spell under Corbyn. Boris is unlikely to change. So I don't see the gap diminishing if he and Starmer carry on as they are doing at present.
But I could be calling this wrong, of course, as you point out.
My guess is that Boris will stay until after the May local elections and Starmer certainly doesn't want him out before then. Beyond that the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.
On current polling Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea at least should be back as Tory holds in May which Boris loyalists would no doubt proclaim.
Though Wandsworth and Barnet will likely still go Labour
All this obsessing over Gray is the mother of all distractions. Conservative MPs should have booted Boris into the sea weeks ago. Unbelievable and unforgivable cowardice from the party.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Does the phrase "rule breaking events" (as denied by Johnson in Parliament) mean illegal or does it include the guidance? Or was all the relevant guidance also in law?
Because I note the latest iteration is he wasn't aware of any events which "broke the law".
Guidance is not the law. But he has I think said in Parliament that all the guidelines were followed. I strongly suspect that he - along with most of the police, many journalists and most of the country - doesn't understand the difference.
It's an interesting point.
With the enormous caveat of this being up to Tory MPs - and I doubt they'll remove him unless polls say they need to for their electoral prospects - I think the technical legalistic way to get him, if it does have a chance, is the Lying To Parliament angle.
He told the House he had no prior knowledge of rule-breaking events. This (for me) includes guidance since in common parlance guidance + law = "the Rules".
So unless Martin Reynolds is prepared to say either (i) that he didn't check the May 20th party with Johnson, or (ii) that he did but misrepresented it as being within the Rules, the Lying To Parliament charge sticks.
This point won't be dropped by Starmer regardless of the shenanigans with Gray and the Met.
Guidance is not rules. 🤦♂️
Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers and if laws have been broken he needs to go. But if no laws have been broken, then no rules have been broken. Guidance is guidance not a rule, the law is the rule.
How about the lying to Parliament angle. This isn't illegal but is not allowed. Even if accidental it has to be corrected. I don't know the process for this. Presumably some standards committee that can then punish, ultimately resulting in a by election if suspended from parliament for long enough, but any suspension of a PM should be a resigning issue.
Having said that saying something that is untrue in a high profile debate normally results in a clamour from the other side to withdraw or resign but this is just politics. As you know I am involved in a campaign and a minister got a couple of facts wrong (one very badly) in a debate. The MPs didn't notice it but we did. We even wrote to the minister pointing out the mistakes. Nothing was done about it; no correction; no withdrawal. Nobody cared and I suspect because this was a cross party issue. In fact most MPs involved are on the Govt benches. Nobody was after somebody else's blood. So the MPs feign shock when this happens but only for party political advantage.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
If whatever has been done cannot be prosecuted under:
(a) COVID restrictions, because these are time expired (b) perverting the course of justice, because any action taken before the law got involved is not in scope
then, what breaches could the police legitimately be investigating? Public office offences? Use of crown property offences?
Or are we saying we think this is an illegitimate investigation whose primary purpose may be to bury what, because of (a) and (b), remains fundamentally a workplace disciplinary issue?
And what does laying out these two possibilities, neither of which paint things in a good light, mean for Tory MPs whose letters were predicated on the Gray report?
Your b is highly questionable. Anyway, we just don't know what is being investigated.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
Prior to COVID, there was an ongoing PHE infection monitoring report published weekly, covering which viruses/infectious diseases were circulating in the UK, what was a potential threat from abroad and what was driving any elevated hospitalisation and mortality.
Though they might review whether anything needs adding, this would be the natural place for endemic COVID monitoring, which would continue in hospitals as per flu, and perhaps be bolstered somewhat, would end up.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
Its not clear that all the testing is achieving anything though. It seems impossible to realistically suppress omicron (and maybe even worse for BA2). Far better to vaccinate, use antivirals and I'm afraid to say, if someone is vulnerable, the onus is on them to take sensible precautions. That's not me being callous, its about being practical. in the face of the prevalence of such a transmissible virus.
Not a criminal lawyer, but this suggests the time limit for prosecuting offences is 3 years not 6 months anyway
IS THERE A TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE POLICE MUST ISSUE THE FIXED PENALTY NOTICE?
There is no time limit for issuing a fixed penalty notice for breach of the coronavirus regulations. However, there is a time limit for bringing criminal charges if you refuse to pay the fine.
If you do not pay the fine, you may be charged with a criminal offence of breaching the coronavirus regulations. The coronavirus regulations were made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which says that if the police or the CPS are going to charge you with an offence, they must do it within:
Three years from the date the offence was committed, and Six months from the date the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to charge you. Put simply, if you failed to pay a fixed penalty notice within 28 days, the police or CPS would then have 6 months in which to charge you with a breach of the coronavirus regulations.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
Thank you, Mr Ed, I accept the compliment with my usual lack of modesty.
You may well be right. I have stated here consistently that an 8 point deficit is nothing special for a mid-term government. The context is everything however. Labour is clawing its way back from a disastrous spell under Corbyn. Boris is unlikely to change. So I don't see the gap diminishing if he and Starmer carry on as they are doing at present.
But I could be calling this wrong, of course, as you point out.
My guess is that Boris will stay until after the May local elections and Starmer certainly doesn't want him out before then. Beyond that the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.
On current polling Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea at least should be back as Tory holds in May which Boris loyalists would no doubt proclaim.
Though Wandsworth and Barnet will likely still go Labour
I honestly don't know how Labour will perform in London (in terms of improving on 2018) as they have underperformed in marginal by elections recently in Barnet and Wandsworth although the Tories are likely to do badly. Although if Labour can sustain a 30% lead in London polling that might be sufficient to gain 2/3 Tory councils.
I think Westminster would be the totemic Tory loss if it happened.
It's even possible the Tories could lose more seats overall to the LDs (in Merton, Sutton, Richmond, Kingston) than Labour.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Starmer hasn't said this, but he could take this approach - in response to @Big_G_NorthWales' remark about Starmer being caught in a situation difficult to get out of. Basically imply that if the Met is blocking Sue Gray's report, it's because the situation is much more serious than we know about.
Or rather, unless they are investigating serious criminal activity, then this is a coverup.
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Meh. Lab -1, LD +3 is not good for the Conservatives.
Traffic light alliance at 56% so fairly clear what's likely to happen at next GE if that stays around the same level.
It's a Goldilocks poll for Starmer - good enough to keep him on course but not so good that the conservatives would feel obliged to remove the man at the top.
Almost always Peter your words are very wise and insightful but, in this case, I think your analysis was wrong.
First of all, what you are saying about it is good for Labour that BJ is kept in place is exactly the same sort of stuff that was being said about Starmer by the Tories 12 months post-the Batley and Spen by-election. More to the point, Johnson has a history of coming back from events that would kill off the careers of most others so you want him permanently gone, not just written off.
Secondly, 38% for Labour at this point is absolutely dire given the circumstances, the flak Johnson has got etc etc. I haven't seen the sub-splits but what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a small but crucial element of the Labour vote that has defected to the Greens post-Corbyn (as @BJO has said) on one hand and that Labour cannot convince much beyond its core base that it is worth voting for.
Thank you, Mr Ed, I accept the compliment with my usual lack of modesty.
You may well be right. I have stated here consistently that an 8 point deficit is nothing special for a mid-term government. The context is everything however. Labour is clawing its way back from a disastrous spell under Corbyn. Boris is unlikely to change. So I don't see the gap diminishing if he and Starmer carry on as they are doing at present.
But I could be calling this wrong, of course, as you point out.
My guess is that Boris will stay until after the May local elections and Starmer certainly doesn't want him out before then. Beyond that the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.
On current polling Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea at least should be back as Tory holds in May which Boris loyalists would no doubt proclaim.
Though Wandsworth and Barnet will likely still go Labour
I honestly don't know how Labour will perform in London (in terms of improving on 2018) as they have underperformed in marginal by elections recently in Barnet and Wandsworth although the Tories are likely to do badly. Although if Labour can sustain a 30% lead in London polling that might be sufficient to gain 2/3 Tory councils.
I think Westminster would be the totemic Tory loss if it happened.
It's even possible the Tories could lose more seats overall to the LDs (in Merton, Sutton, Richmond, Kingston) than Labour.
If Westminster went then yes Boris would certainly face a VONC then but I think the Tories will hold it even with some losses to Labour.
Given Labour already hold the vast majority of London councils and councillors anyway then yes in SW London certainly you would expect the LDs to make further inroads, though Richmond and Kingston councils are already LD held.
Even in posh West London the LDs got a higher vote in Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham and Kensington than they did nationally in 2019 so would also hope to win their first councillors in Westminster and add to their 1 Councillor in Kensington and Chelsea
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
I've always been a bit sceptical that what amounts to a risk segmentation approach can be successful. This is why, pre-vaccines, I was of the view that we had to aim towards zero-Covid.
You say "too early", but it's not clear to me what threshold that hasn't been passed already, could be passed in the future to bring an end to mass-testing, if it is still necessary now. What do you have in mind?
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
Well I'll ignore the hyperbolic language (which is uncharacteristic of you).
I'm undecided, but what is the rationale for mass-testing when we are not trying to restrict transmission?
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Starmer hasn't said this, but he could take this approach - in response to @Big_G_NorthWales' remark about Starmer being caught in a situation difficult to get out of. Basically imply that if the Met is blocking Sue Gray's report, it's because the situation is much more serious than we know about.
Or rather, unless they are investigating serious criminal activity, then this is a coverup.
The question is why the sudden change of mind? For two days the Met were briefing that there was no need to hold back Gray's report and then suddenly at 10am today complete volte face.
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
That's a fair summary, I took the IMF projections forwards and it looks like at the end of 2023 the UK will have lost around 2.8% in growth potential and France around 2.6% in lost growth potential. Both countries have had almost identical pandemic responses, poor early decision making and Macron is very much in the "keep everything open" camp despite huge infection numbers like Boris.
The most interesting of them all is Germany which didn't have as big a fall as the UK or France but also having little to no bounceback and it seems as though they are already heading to trend growth so their lost potential could be significantly higher than both France or the UK. The other one I've seen that's gone a bit unnoticed is that the city consensus has downgraded all three countries' trend growth rate post pandemic which is probably a much, much bigger concern for governments than what this year's bounce back looks like. That will change long term tax growth expectations meaning structurally lower spending or higher taxes will be required.
That's roughly how I read. Though I think you may be underplaying German underperformance during 2021. Their investment figures suffered badly.
Despite the interminable blathering about Brexit, we are all more or less in lockstep at this time.
One other factor not often mentioned is different timings of the Omicron wave.
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
So if it is in the public interest to break into a house.....?
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
Its not clear that all the testing is achieving anything though. It seems impossible to realistically suppress omicron (and maybe even worse for BA2). Far better to vaccinate, use antivirals and I'm afraid to say, if someone is vulnerable, the onus is on them to take sensible precautions. That's not me being callous, its about being practical. in the face of the prevalence of such a transmissible virus.
One of the most unscientific (and dangerous) cliches to be set in the public consciousness seems to that one's own protection is entirely at the mercy of others. It isn't.
Why aren't we publicly funding protective masks for the vulnerable? Instead we are labouring under this ludicrous mantra that we use cloths mask 'to protect others not oneself' – a daft idea given that gives no individual any control over their own welfare.
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
So if it is in the public interest to break into a house.....?
Happens all the time. Never seen the police or fire services bust into a place?
Ian Dunt @IanDunt · 1h They'd have failed to intervene to stop an illegal gathering, failed to launch an investigation when news of it emerged, forced the civil service to conduct an inquiry due to their reticence & then undermined the release of its findings by belatedly initiating their own.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
I've always been a bit sceptical that what amounts to a risk segmentation approach can be successful. This is why, pre-vaccines, I was of the view that we had to aim towards zero-Covid.
You say "too early", but it's not clear to me what threshold that hasn't been passed already, could be passed in the future to bring an end to mass-testing, if it is still necessary now. What do you have in mind?
The other thing which needs defining is 'mass testing'.
I would argue that 1.3m tests a day is rather more than we need. We don't, now - I would say - need to be testing our entire school population twice a week: doing so is not only a waste of resources but results in a lot of asymptomatic children missing education. (I haven't done the sums to balance 'needless education wasted by mass testing' against 'needless education wasted by preventable spread of covid', not least because it would be based on assumptions which neither I nor anybody else would be capable of getting right. This is entirely a gut feel so please treat it as such.)
But I can also see the argument that if you and the kids were off to visit gran in her care home, a quick LFT before you go might not be misplaced.
And obviously there will be a need for medical testing for those with symptoms, particularly now we are getting to a point where we have effective medicines for covid besides vaccination.
So the 'right' level of testing lies somewhere between 1.3m tests a day and none.
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
Then hid what they were doing and lied about it when asked.
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
So if it is in the public interest to break into a house.....?
Yes. The classic example is committing criminal damage to kick someone's front door in, so that you can drag them out from a fire, or save them from an attempted murder.
I think if I was Sue Gray, I'd refuse to publish now till I can publish in full.
How long does the Met need ??
Could she walk away from the whole thing? Say that she’s been completely undermined.
The Gray report is published without the juicy stuff. The police investigation does not lead to charges for Johnson or anyone senior and close to him. Details on the juicy stuff omitted from Gray never see the light of day. If this is what transpires it would look so like a cover-up that one would have to conclude it was. Its authors would have to hope the public lets it go. Hopefully the public won't. Hopefully the public will step up to the plate on this one.
If seems noticeable how Sky and BBC are spending less time on this furore this morning
They are reporting on it but not the same obsessing about it
I am very disappointed that the report was not released before the Met got involved
You seemed positively giddy about it up till this post. Not quite to HYUFD levels, but above Sandpit on the Borisometer.
"Politics eh"
I am not the least bit giddy, but I do comment as I see things and while I want Rishi as PM, I do not want Starmer so that may help to understand where I am coming from
Ian Dunt @IanDunt · 1h They'd have failed to intervene to stop an illegal gathering, failed to launch an investigation when news of it emerged, forced the civil service to conduct an inquiry due to their reticence & then undermined the release of its findings by belatedly initiating their own.
If seems noticeable how Sky and BBC are spending less time on this furore this morning
They are reporting on it but not the same obsessing about it
I am very disappointed that the report was not released before the Met got involved
You seemed positively giddy about it up till this post. Not quite to HYUFD levels, but above Sandpit on the Borisometer.
"Politics eh"
I am not the least bit giddy, but I do comment as I see things and while I want Rishi as PM, I do not want Starmer so that may help to understand where I am coming from
I think achieving your preferred outcome is perhaps of rather less import than removing the liar and charlatan from No10.
This is why Boris Johnson should resign/be forced out.
First official estimate puts French growth in 2021 at 7% - the highest annual figure for half a century! And ahead of the previous forecast of 6.7 or 6.8%. If confirmed this would make France the fastest growing G7 country last year
The UK data, when they are published, will probably show UK GDP growth in 2021 as slightly higher than that - around 7.3% I would expect - although UK GDP fell more than French GDP in 2020 (-9.4% vs - 8.0%). Both the decline and recovery in the UK are likely over-stated by the way the data are calculated. The big picture, as is often the case, is that differences between the two countries are much exaggerated, but France is probably marginally ahead taking 2020 and 2021 together, and that is probably down to Brexit.
That's a fair summary, I took the IMF projections forwards and it looks like at the end of 2023 the UK will have lost around 2.8% in growth potential and France around 2.6% in lost growth potential. Both countries have had almost identical pandemic responses, poor early decision making and Macron is very much in the "keep everything open" camp despite huge infection numbers like Boris.
The most interesting of them all is Germany which didn't have as big a fall as the UK or France but also having little to no bounceback and it seems as though they are already heading to trend growth so their lost potential could be significantly higher than both France or the UK. The other one I've seen that's gone a bit unnoticed is that the city consensus has downgraded all three countries' trend growth rate post pandemic which is probably a much, much bigger concern for governments than what this year's bounce back looks like. That will change long term tax growth expectations meaning structurally lower spending or higher taxes will be required.
That's roughly how I read. Though I think you may be underplaying German underperformance during 2021. Their investment figures suffered badly.
Despite the interminable blathering about Brexit, we are all more or less in lockstep at this time.
One other factor not often mentioned is different timings of the Omicron wave.
Even the most pessimistic of post-Brexit forecasts had UK and EU growth differing by levels which pale to insignifance in comparison with the impact of covid. Brexit may well have a negative impact on UK growth (though my own view is, in the medium term, not). But any impact will be dwarfed by the impact of covid.
If seems noticeable how Sky and BBC are spending less time on this furore this morning
They are reporting on it but not the same obsessing about it
I am very disappointed that the report was not released before the Met got involved
You seemed positively giddy about it up till this post. Not quite to HYUFD levels, but above Sandpit on the Borisometer.
"Politics eh"
Whatever happened to Squareroot2? That bloke used to wank himself off over Johnson until his cock looked like a red jelly baby.
It's been quite a fall from grace when HYUFD, Sandpit and Big G are the only three Johnson defenders remaining unbowed. At the going down of the polls we will remember the fallen.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Starmer hasn't said this, but he could take this approach - in response to @Big_G_NorthWales' remark about Starmer being caught in a situation difficult to get out of. Basically imply that if the Met is blocking Sue Gray's report, it's because the situation is much more serious than we know about.
Or rather, unless they are investigating serious criminal activity, then this is a coverup.
The question is why the sudden change of mind? For two days the Met were briefing that there was no need to hold back Gray's report and then suddenly at 10am today complete volte face.
Someone put a call in to PC Dick?
Everyone involved will have lawyered up. I imagine that the Met was getting a zillion calls from *all* the barristers about not allowing publication during the investigation... with implications of going to court etc etc...
If seems noticeable how Sky and BBC are spending less time on this furore this morning
They are reporting on it but not the same obsessing about it
I am very disappointed that the report was not released before the Met got involved
You seemed positively giddy about it up till this post. Not quite to HYUFD levels, but above Sandpit on the Borisometer.
"Politics eh"
I am not the least bit giddy, but I do comment as I see things and while I want Rishi as PM, I do not want Starmer so that may help to understand where I am coming from
Starmer won't be PM any time soon, it's either Boris or A N Other Tory. So your whataboutery regarding Starmer is a bit odd.
Paxlovid deployed in the UK from 10th February. Will be given to highest-risk groups including 'people who are immunocompromised, cancer patients or those with Down’s Syndrome', DHSC says. Will be delivered to homes of people who test +ve for covid or collected from NHS unit.
That is major news, and fantastic news. I wonder how much publicity it will get?
It's the actual end of the pandemic in the UK. The personal risk factors are non-existent once this is rolled out in a couple of weeks. People who can be vaccinated have that option and 91% of eligible people have done so, Omicron is less able to hospitalise us and now for those people who are unable to get vaccines or have additional risk factors we have two anti-virals that work pretty well. The UK is very well placed to be the first major country to exit the pandemic and live with the virus. It's going to be time to end mandatory isolation on positive tests soon and allow people to use their own judgement on how sick they are. As it should be.
I think I'd stop mass-testing altogether now. Keep the ONS survey going. Test admissions to hospital, and possibly hospital staff.
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
That's a fair point, actually. Our strategy is de facto now to allow transmission and accept it as a fact of life. Hence, why mass-test? There's not much point finding out what we already know and accept I suppose.
Too early and too many vulnerable folk to stop mass testing. There is real value in being able to LFT to protect other people around oneself (whatever the Typhoid Mary enthusiasts might assert).
I've always been a bit sceptical that what amounts to a risk segmentation approach can be successful. This is why, pre-vaccines, I was of the view that we had to aim towards zero-Covid.
You say "too early", but it's not clear to me what threshold that hasn't been passed already, could be passed in the future to bring an end to mass-testing, if it is still necessary now. What do you have in mind?
The other thing which needs defining is 'mass testing'.
I would argue that 1.3m tests a day is rather more than we need. We don't, now - I would say - need to be testing our entire school population twice a week: doing so is not only a waste of resources but results in a lot of asymptomatic children missing education. (I haven't done the sums to balance 'needless education wasted by mass testing' against 'needless education wasted by preventable spread of covid', not least because it would be based on assumptions which neither I nor anybody else would be capable of getting right. This is entirely a gut feel so please treat it as such.)
But I can also see the argument that if you and the kids were off to visit gran in her care home, a quick LFT before you go might not be misplaced.
And obviously there will be a need for medical testing for those with symptoms, particularly now we are getting to a point where we have effective medicines for covid besides vaccination.
So the 'right' level of testing lies somewhere between 1.3m tests a day and none.
Broadly speaking I think that the level of testing for Covid that is necessary and useful today is the same level of testing that would be necessary and useful in five years time.
That's not nothing. As others point out we do testing for medical and surveillance purposes for influenza and other viruses.
In terms of testing before you visit gran, if we continue to do that for Covid, then it would be logically consistent to start doing it for influenza and other viruses. Is that necessary?
My personal view is that would be excessive, and we can encourage people to take more care when experiencing symptoms of a respiratory virus more generally, without having to test to see which one they have.
I wonder whether we'll see her on her feet in Parliament next week. As an ex-PM, and an MP for a safe seat she's untouchable. And I don't think she owes Boris anything. She gave him a chance and as far as she is concerned, he blew it.
My guess is a copy will be leaked to the press in time for the Sunday papers.
But they won't be able to publish it, legal issues.
Not so. It isn't sub judice unless they've charged someone by then
I just cannot believe how disgusting this is
And yet the opposition lead by Labour were demanding a police investigation and maybe they had not thought through the consequences
I have no idea how Starmer, especially with his lawyer hat on, deals with this
"As a former head of public prosecutions I am on the side of those seeking to bring bad guys to justice. If the Met have grounds for suspecting serious criminal activity in 10 Downing Street, I support that activity being fully investigated even if means a delay in Sue Gray's report."
Did he really call it "serious criminal activity"?
Starmer hasn't said this, but he could take this approach - in response to @Big_G_NorthWales' remark about Starmer being caught in a situation difficult to get out of. Basically imply that if the Met is blocking Sue Gray's report, it's because the situation is much more serious than we know about.
Or rather, unless they are investigating serious criminal activity, then this is a coverup.
The question is why the sudden change of mind? For two days the Met were briefing that there was no need to hold back Gray's report and then suddenly at 10am today complete volte face.
Someone put a call in to PC Dick?
My instinct is that there is something more serious. If Sue Gray suspects people have been wiping evidence then this could get much more serious. If she is, as many of us suspect, is from one of the security services then she has a pretty good chance of uncovering such behaviour. One of the fundamental problems with having a PM that thinks the rules are there to be bent is the risk that one day he tries to bend them too far. It might be getting too hyperbolic to suggest a Watergate type scandal, but it is perfectly possible that such a thing could happen here, and probably rather more likely while we have a serial liar in the most senior position in the land
Which is hugely ironic because it was a CFTC (Chicago-based commodities regulator) investigation into LIBOR rigging by banks in the U.K. which triggered the whole LIBOR investigation in the first place.
Hasn't there been some suggestion that the UK banks were being encouraged by the BoE?
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
How I recall it is that the BoE manipulated LIBOR to the low side in the aftermath of the Crash. But their motive was a public interest one as opposed to the traders at banks who were doing it to boost their profits.
Then hid what they were doing and lied about it when asked.
Regarding Covid: I am very sure that we are not at the end of the pandemic. The end of the pandemic has been claimed many times before. The reality is that we just don't know what the virus will do next.
However it is also quite easy to see that the current system of managing the pandemic is inappropriate and disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the virus. The problems being faced by society and in the economy are predominantly caused by the public health rules initiated as a consequence of the virus, and not the virus itself.
The sheer scale of the project of managing the pandemic, and the time it has been going on, has created a problem of producer interest. There are a vast amount of jobs and investments that rely on the continued management of the pandemic as at present.
The challenge is to wind down the system, whilst keeping the essential infrastructure and systems in place, so they can be quickly wound back up when needed. Thats not an easy task.
Comments
Y no longer has a copy of that email and it seems to have disappeared between 1st and 10th January following an instruction sent by XYZ.
I can see why that could be a problem to an police investigation - the odds of XYZ getting a fair trial after the publicity would be about 0.
Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
Without that, it would be a very dubious decision, but given the (overly prescriptive IMO) rule, it's quite understandable.
I used to work serving Guinness to violent terrorists, but my career got progressively worse from there.
Today's problem solved. Roll on tomorrow!!
You might get an answer to your not-quite-so-hypothetical
Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers and if laws have been broken he needs to go. But if no laws have been broken, then no rules have been broken. Guidance is guidance not a rule, the law is the rule.
However, if you change the story slightly, and the tenth victim is the persistent police detective who wouldn't let the case lie, who died in the course of solving the crime, well, I wouldn't say they would have been best off leaving it alone. I'd say their achievement in solving the case was worth the risk that led to their death.
A US appeals court has overturned the convictions of two former Deutsche Bank traders who were prosecuted for rigging interest rates.
In a legally significant judgment, US judges acquitted Matthew Connolly, 58, from New Jersey and Gavin Black, 52, from Twickenham, Middlesex.
The court ruled that their conduct was not against the rules.
It means that what has been prosecuted as interest rate rigging in the UK is not regarded as a crime in the US.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60163757
Johnson remaining in office is good for all political parties except the Conservatives.
Not so good for the rest of us, mind
Yes. assuming she does reach the runoff (and Pecresse is just about ahead of Le Pen for second behind Macron in round 1), then Pecresse would need to convince the vast majority of both Zemmour and Le Pen voters to turn out again and vote for her in the runoff to beat Macron.
However if she does she could still win
At least High Priestess Pagel makes a token effort to stick to the facts.
Sunak might have a chance of winning most seats at present, while Boris gets to a hung parliament too but with Labour most seats but Sunak would not win a majority either still
I'm not sure why the insightful and balanced Triggle is seemingly excluded from the BBC's main news programmes in favour of innumerate tabloid hacks, but there it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60161124
I mean, this graph really tells its own story. But who knew?
Loathed by BJ is a plus, and he alone has had the guts to knife him by publishing kabul emails
Something is a criminal offence in one jurisdiction that we operate in whilst it is legit and encouraged in another jurisdiction that we operate in.
#NotPaidEnoughToDealWithThis
I don't see what is gained by mass-testing. Given the incidence rates we're clearly not motivated to make an effort to suppress transmission. So mass-testing is a waste of time and money.
Trending in United Kingdom
Stinks
says it all
You may well be right. I have stated here consistently that an 8 point deficit is nothing special for a mid-term government. The context is everything however. Labour is clawing its way back from a disastrous spell under Corbyn. Boris is unlikely to change. So I don't see the gap diminishing if he and Starmer carry on as they are doing at present.
But I could be calling this wrong, of course, as you point out.
My guess is that Boris will stay until after the May local elections and Starmer certainly doesn't want him out before then. Beyond that the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.
However I think he is more a future Foreign Secretary than PM
#NoAmountOfMoneyWouldBeEnough
(a) COVID restrictions, because these are time expired
(b) perverting the course of justice, because any action taken before the law got involved is not in scope
then, what breaches could the police legitimately be investigating? Public office offences? Use of crown property offences?
Or are we saying we think this is an illegitimate investigation whose primary purpose may be to bury what, because of (a) and (b), remains fundamentally a workplace disciplinary issue?
And what does laying out these two possibilities, neither of which paint things in a good light, mean for Tory MPs whose letters were predicated on the Gray report?
Though Wandsworth and Barnet will likely still go Labour
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/01/the-choice/
"There is a choice that has to be made by every supporter of the current governing party of the United Kingdom.
In essence the choice is: what price partisanship?
By ‘price’ is meant: what will need to be exchanged for maintaining support for the current Prime Minister?
The price currently on offer is the integrity of the constitution."
Having said that saying something that is untrue in a high profile debate normally results in a clamour from the other side to withdraw or resign but this is just politics. As you know I am involved in a campaign and a minister got a couple of facts wrong (one very badly) in a debate. The MPs didn't notice it but we did. We even wrote to the minister pointing out the mistakes. Nothing was done about it; no correction; no withdrawal. Nobody cared and I suspect because this was a cross party issue. In fact most MPs involved are on the Govt benches. Nobody was after somebody else's blood. So the MPs feign shock when this happens but only for party political advantage.
How long does the Met need ??
Tugendhadt may not be uber charismatic, but he is a competent, conscientious grafter which is good enough for me.
Though they might review whether anything needs adding, this would be the natural place for endemic COVID monitoring, which would continue in hospitals as per flu, and perhaps be bolstered somewhat, would end up.
IS THERE A TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE POLICE MUST ISSUE THE FIXED PENALTY NOTICE?
There is no time limit for issuing a fixed penalty notice for breach of the coronavirus regulations. However, there is a time limit for bringing criminal charges if you refuse to pay the fine.
If you do not pay the fine, you may be charged with a criminal offence of breaching the coronavirus regulations. The coronavirus regulations were made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which says that if the police or the CPS are going to charge you with an offence, they must do it within:
Three years from the date the offence was committed, and
Six months from the date the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to charge you.
Put simply, if you failed to pay a fixed penalty notice within 28 days, the police or CPS would then have 6 months in which to charge you with a breach of the coronavirus regulations.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/coronavirus-criminal-penalties/
I think Westminster would be the totemic Tory loss if it happened.
It's even possible the Tories could lose more seats overall to the LDs (in Merton, Sutton, Richmond, Kingston) than Labour.
Given Labour already hold the vast majority of London councils and councillors anyway then yes in SW London certainly you would expect the LDs to make further inroads, though Richmond and Kingston councils are already LD held.
Even in posh West London the LDs got a higher vote in Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham and Kensington than they did nationally in 2019 so would also hope to win their first councillors in Westminster and add to their 1 Councillor in Kensington and Chelsea
Biggest fish getting through the nets?
You say "too early", but it's not clear to me what threshold that hasn't been passed already, could be passed in the future to bring an end to mass-testing, if it is still necessary now. What do you have in mind?
They are reporting on it but not the same obsessing about it
I am very disappointed that the report was not released before the Met got involved
Not one mention the Gray Report or Boris's difficulties. I only looked at the first page of the comment section which goes back to 19th Jan.
So I presume that the rank and file are happy with the PMs behaviour?
I'm undecided, but what is the rationale for mass-testing when we are not trying to restrict transmission?
Someone put a call in to PC Dick?
Despite the interminable blathering about Brexit, we are all more or less in lockstep at this time.
One other factor not often mentioned is different timings of the Omicron wave.
Why aren't we publicly funding protective masks for the vulnerable? Instead we are labouring under this ludicrous mantra that we use cloths mask 'to protect others not oneself' – a daft idea given that gives no individual any control over their own welfare.
Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
1h
They'd have failed to intervene to stop an illegal gathering, failed to launch an investigation when news of it emerged, forced the civil service to conduct an inquiry due to their reticence & then undermined the release of its findings by belatedly initiating their own.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1487015790868115463
"Politics eh"
Remember. Judges are never influenced by politics
I would argue that 1.3m tests a day is rather more than we need. We don't, now - I would say - need to be testing our entire school population twice a week: doing so is not only a waste of resources but results in a lot of asymptomatic children missing education. (I haven't done the sums to balance 'needless education wasted by mass testing' against 'needless education wasted by preventable spread of covid', not least because it would be based on assumptions which neither I nor anybody else would be capable of getting right. This is entirely a gut feel so please treat it as such.)
But I can also see the argument that if you and the kids were off to visit gran in her care home, a quick LFT before you go might not be misplaced.
And obviously there will be a need for medical testing for those with symptoms, particularly now we are getting to a point where we have effective medicines for covid besides vaccination.
So the 'right' level of testing lies somewhere between 1.3m tests a day and none.
Brexit may well have a negative impact on UK growth (though my own view is, in the medium term, not). But any impact will be dwarfed by the impact of covid.
She is absolutely right.
It's been quite a fall from grace when HYUFD, Sandpit and Big G are the only three Johnson defenders remaining unbowed. At the going down of the polls we will remember the fallen.
🥂🥂🥂🥂
I think we are finding out she is actually wrong. Sadly.
That's not nothing. As others point out we do testing for medical and surveillance purposes for influenza and other viruses.
In terms of testing before you visit gran, if we continue to do that for Covid, then it would be logically consistent to start doing it for influenza and other viruses. Is that necessary?
My personal view is that would be excessive, and we can encourage people to take more care when experiencing symptoms of a respiratory virus more generally, without having to test to see which one they have.
And I don't think she owes Boris anything. She gave him a chance and as far as she is concerned, he blew it.
However it is also quite easy to see that the current system of managing the pandemic is inappropriate and disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the virus. The problems being faced by society and in the economy are predominantly caused by the public health rules initiated as a consequence of the virus, and not the virus itself.
The sheer scale of the project of managing the pandemic, and the time it has been going on, has created a problem of producer interest. There are a vast amount of jobs and investments that rely on the continued management of the pandemic as at present.
The challenge is to wind down the system, whilst keeping the essential infrastructure and systems in place, so they can be quickly wound back up when needed. Thats not an easy task.