The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
IDK, it wasn't a million miles away by the end (including getting the votes of Boris and JRM, who discovered it was Brexit after all), so I think another leader might have been able to squeak on through. The question of whether Boris could have done it, by virtue of not having to put up with Boris attacking it, is an interesting one.
The irony is that, ultimately, May's deal could have ended up harder than Boris's deal will be.
May's would have started off with GB following the Single Market in goods for the sake of NI and trying to plot a, at least semi- coherent way out over a few years.
Boris's put us theoretically out of that market, but constantly seeking exceptions, exemptions and extensions to run away from the reality that little was sorted in terms of how to trade and to dig his way back, partly, in without anyone noticing. Once again, he thought the rules didn't apply to him.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why will the bodies be piling high? 98% have antibodies.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
Republicans trying to coerce people who don't want children into same-sex marriages where pregnancy tends to be less of a risk.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
He doesn't think. He doesn't even believe in anything. He just whinges endlessly.
BJ controls the Scandinavian nations. He even controls Russia and is making them invade Ukraine to save his (BJ's neck).
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
He doesn't think. He doesn't even believe in anything. He just whinges endlessly.
BJ controls the Scandinavian nations. He even controls Russia and is making them invade Ukraine to save his (BJ's neck).
Alternatively.....
I don’t think anyone is saying that. I do think that Boris is very happy the crisis has come along.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
Denmark: "Denmark has lifted all Covid-19 restrictions within the country, with coronavirus no longer considered a "socially critical sickness," according to the government. This means that an indoor mask mandate, the use of a "Covid pass" for bars, restaurants and other indoor venues, and the legal obligation to self-isolate if you test positive are all ending."
Norway: "The Norwegian Government is removing all regulatory measures against COVID-19, including the requirement to wear a face covering, keep a 1-metre distance, and the duty to go into isolation when people are sick."
Sweden: "Sweden is set to lift all coronavirus restrictions by February 9, the government announced Thursday, as it joined the likes of the U.K., Denmark and Norway in downgrading the threat posed by COVID-19. "
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Doesn't seem to me that it's the aim of many people in the EU to build a nation. I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Given the nastiness with which COVID can fuck with the lungs, and the history of lung diseases/damage putting massive strain on the rest of the cardio-vascular system, I find this horribly unsurprising.
How many cases of COVID are "acute" - a heavy cold? flue-level? Hospitalisation? Ventilation?
That's discussed in the paper. Look at table 8 of the supplementary information - basically the long term risk scales with the severity of the infection (as you might guess). There's a relatively small, but significant increased risk for non-hospitalised, which increases substantially for those hospitalised, and jumps again for those who went into intensive care.
What consideration is given to vaccination status? It says "Our analyses censoring participants at time of vaccination and controlling for vaccination as a time-varying covariate show that the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis reported in this study is significant in people who were not vaccinated and is evident regardless of vaccination status." I must admit that is a bit beyond me, but that last part suggests the was a comparison between outcomes for vaccinated people. However I can't find that anywhere.
As time continues to move on, I become more and more convinced that Johnson would have lost against any other Labour leader.
There was a substantial minority of people who voted Cons in 2019 that dismissed instantly the idea of voting Lab because of Corbyn. Another leader might well have lead them to ponder the issue at greater length.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
But when is there ever going to be a very right time for anyone who refuses to be vaccinated? It is a cage of their own making.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Doesn't seem to me that it's the aim of many people in the EU to build a nation. I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
You say that, but they are removing all restrictions - and removing much of the testing. As far as I am aware, the UK is the only European nation that will be doing surveillance testing going forward.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
Another two friends of mine have recently confided in me that they are suffering from acute anxiety (one gave up their job on that account).
Of course the virus itself was the original cause of this but dear god didn't the government and all the very same people who are decrying this crazy reckless step now to rid us of restrictions lay it on with a trowel thus imo inducing a level of general anxiety in the nation that will play out over the next few years. Long Covid my arse; what about the long term psychological damage that has been done by the extreme scaremongering these past two years.
Lastest John Oliver episode was pretty interesting, about Critical Race Theory. I got the impression that, unlike some other topics that he would tackle, he felt some of his viewing audience might actually have been on board with some of the criticisms, so he made a bit more of an effort to talk about where teaching goes wrong, and how it is not fair to use those when thinking about the totality of CRT, and that the outrage has been working. Funny as he is (he's one of my favourite comedians), when it isn't a subject like nuclear waste storage or some other more apolitical topic, he's not usually so careful on the scorn to explanation ratio, so it was more about persuading as well as merely entertaining his audience.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Doesn't seem to me that it's the aim of many people in the EU to build a nation. I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Absolutely. They want to further the aims of "the organisation" as a supra-national entity. But without the Member States they are nothing and are powerless.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
One of your poorest ever efforts.
Indeed. Pitiful. We need to lift restrictions some time and other nations are doing it.
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate
Careful. You will get summarily shot in Trump's coming Gilead if you sing that.
"Mark Harper @Mark_J_Harper The Govt’s plan for living with Covid took a while to arrive, but I’m glad it’s here.
However, it’s disappointing that the Prime Minister has refused rapid action on reforming the Public Health Act 1984 so Ministers can no longer bring lockdowns into force by decree…"
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Doesn't seem to me that it's the aim of many people in the EU to build a nation. I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
I have often thought that the EU constitution should be more like the (probably post-Westphalian) Holy Roman Empire.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
There are enough people like this that it should be a concern of government policy to provide assistance to such people, not so they can sustain shielding forever, but to talk through what elements can change, what vaccination looks like for them and any concerns they have, and to work with them on what unlockdown looks like individually for them.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why will the bodies be piling high? 98% have antibodies.
They won't be. Unless a new vaccine-bypassing strain emerges and does Covid's usual exponential growth thing and we have completely dismantled both our means to monitor Covid and our ability to react.
I want us to put Covid behind us and box up many of the things we have all been stuck using these past two years. But we need to keep vigilant for new threats and have the stuff in a box ready to be pulled out.
I get the impression that Big Dog would scrap them all if he could.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
There are enough people like this that it should be a concern of government policy to provide assistance to people like this, not so they can sustain shielding forever, but to talk through what elements can change, what vaccination looks like for them and any concerns they have, and to work with them.on what unlockdown looks like individually for them.
Agree. It is not immediately obvious why Alan, Jen's carer would have decided against a vaccine.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Absolutely. They want to further the aims of "the organisation" as a supra-national entity. But without the Member States they are nothing and are powerless.
I don't think it is that they are powerless. It is, in my view, that the critique of the EU muddles areas driven by EU-led institutions, with the views of the block's member states, and refer to the two interchangeably when we consdier "ever closer union". On the accession of new member states, and the Euro, the latter. Standardised rules on the sale of bananas? Mainly the former.
No one reading Guido is in a position to describe anyone else as a moron.
Amusing, but it is useful to know what that strand of politics is focusing on. Or, for instance, when it has been critical of Boris, as it was quite a bit before doing some damage control seemingly thinking it had gone too far as talk of votes of no confidence ramped up.
I see a piece earlier today is warning people not to fall for Sunak cutting NI back ahead of the next GE because of the impact of raising tax thresholds previously - should I discount that criticism of potential Tory policy because of who is criticising it?
"Mark Harper @Mark_J_Harper The Govt’s plan for living with Covid took a while to arrive, but I’m glad it’s here.
However, it’s disappointing that the Prime Minister has refused rapid action on reforming the Public Health Act 1984 so Ministers can no longer bring lockdowns into force by decree…"
@bondegezou posted a link to this which does indeed give ministers the right to trample wholesale over peoples' rights. I am with Mark Harper in seeking to reform it. .
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
Denmark: "Denmark has lifted all Covid-19 restrictions within the country, with coronavirus no longer considered a "socially critical sickness," according to the government. This means that an indoor mask mandate, the use of a "Covid pass" for bars, restaurants and other indoor venues, and the legal obligation to self-isolate if you test positive are all ending."
Norway: "The Norwegian Government is removing all regulatory measures against COVID-19, including the requirement to wear a face covering, keep a 1-metre distance, and the duty to go into isolation when people are sick."
Sweden: "Sweden is set to lift all coronavirus restrictions by February 9, the government announced Thursday, as it joined the likes of the U.K., Denmark and Norway in downgrading the threat posed by COVID-19. "
Thanks for demonstrating these countries all have different Covid restrictions to us and to each other. Everyone is heading to a place where we stand down much of our Covid defences. That is somewhat different of them seeing the leadership of Boris and saying "we will follow oh great one" which is what you seem to be suggesting.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
Objection your honour! 'Old Right Wing Codger' is a tautology. In fact a double one!
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
That's just the quick medical intervention of the Russian state at work, toverishch.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Absolutely. They want to further the aims of "the organisation" as a supra-national entity. But without the Member States they are nothing and are powerless.
I don't think it is that they are powerless. It is, in my view, that the critique of the EU muddles areas driven by EU-led institutions, with the views of the block's member states, and refer to the two interchangeably when we consdier "ever closer union". On the accession of new member states, and the Euro, the latter. Standardised rules on the sale of bananas? Mainly the former.
One particular piece of EU legislation (on financial services) was described as a solution in search of a problem. The intention is good (consumer protection) but the solution goes overboard as to become unworkable. I continue to believe (as for example in this area) that the UK was better off in and leading the way than out.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
But when is there ever going to be a very right time for anyone who refuses to be vaccinated? It is a cage of their own making.
There's never going to be a right time for them, nor for a lot of other very vulnerable and very scared people. On the other hand, journalists are always looking for, and ready to broadcast, these kinds of cases. You seldom hear from the vulnerable people, of whom there are plenty, who have already been managing risk for donkey's years, want to get on with enjoying life, and have long since given up on shielding or anything very much like it. Some of them are pottering around quite happily in masks and others don't even bother with those anymore.
It's neither possible nor desirable to carry on with statutory restrictions on the everyday lives of the whole population forever. This means that they have to stop and, given the nature of Omicron and the current trajectory of the pandemic, it's not going to help very much to keep on stalling. I don't agree with every facet of the Government's approach, but the fundamental principle that the rules should be repealed seems sound.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
On this BBC piece about why PUtin might not invade Ukraine, I have to admit to being surprised this point When Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014 it became an international pariah for years.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
But when is there ever going to be a very right time for anyone who refuses to be vaccinated? It is a cage of their own making.
There's never going to be a right time for them, nor for a lot of other very vulnerable and very scared people. On the other hand, journalists are always looking for, and ready to broadcast, these kinds of cases. You seldom hear from the vulnerable people, of whom there are plenty, who have already been managing risk for donkey's years, want to get on with enjoying life, and have long since given up on shielding or anything very much like it. Some of them are pottering around quite happily in masks and others don't even bother with those anymore.
It's neither possible nor desirable to carry on with statutory restrictions on the everyday lives of the whole population forever. This means that they have to stop and, given the nature of Omicron and the current trajectory of the pandemic, it's not going to help very much to keep on stalling. I don't agree with every facet of the Government's approach, but the fundamental principle that the rules should be repealed seems sound.
One of the most disappointing elements of the pandemic is the way the BBC has for the past two years consistently displayed all of these "Is it too soon" "Are we being premature" "Meet Jen and Alan..." stories which have made them appear for all the world like a government-sponsored, public interest-directed state broadcaster rather than an independent news organisation.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
It doesn’t explain why Alan, the carer, refuses to take the vaccine.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
This government has been frightening me since before Covid was even known about.
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Absolutely. They want to further the aims of "the organisation" as a supra-national entity. But without the Member States they are nothing and are powerless.
I don't think it is that they are powerless. It is, in my view, that the critique of the EU muddles areas driven by EU-led institutions, with the views of the block's member states, and refer to the two interchangeably when we consdier "ever closer union". On the accession of new member states, and the Euro, the latter. Standardised rules on the sale of bananas? Mainly the former.
One particular piece of EU legislation (on financial services) was described as a solution in search of a problem. The intention is good (consumer protection) but the solution goes overboard as to become unworkable. I continue to believe (as for example in this area) that the UK was better off in and leading the way than out.
Pretty much my view.
In fact my full view is that the UK’s “burden” was to envisage and push for a more flexible architecture (the concentric circles) to the EU, while retaining all the privileges of membership.
I know many on here say the UK never got its way but (a) I think this is mostly false; and (b) no statesman - not even Blair - was sufficiently attentive to the EU challenge and opportunity.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
It doesn’t explain why Alan, the carer, refuses to take the vaccine.
Was a point I noted earlier. They have obviously got themselves into a blue funk and need serious help to get them out of their current mindset.
It's reasonable to ask whether politicians are making a decision supported by the advice of subject-matter experts or in opposition to that advice. Doesn't mean that they can't make that decision, but what's wrong with openness and accountability?
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
Denmark: "Denmark has lifted all Covid-19 restrictions within the country, with coronavirus no longer considered a "socially critical sickness," according to the government. This means that an indoor mask mandate, the use of a "Covid pass" for bars, restaurants and other indoor venues, and the legal obligation to self-isolate if you test positive are all ending."
Norway: "The Norwegian Government is removing all regulatory measures against COVID-19, including the requirement to wear a face covering, keep a 1-metre distance, and the duty to go into isolation when people are sick."
Sweden: "Sweden is set to lift all coronavirus restrictions by February 9, the government announced Thursday, as it joined the likes of the U.K., Denmark and Norway in downgrading the threat posed by COVID-19. "
Thanks for demonstrating these countries all have different Covid restrictions to us and to each other. Everyone is heading to a place where we stand down much of our Covid defences. That is somewhat different of them seeing the leadership of Boris and saying "we will follow oh great one" which is what you seem to be suggesting.
They are all abolishing all legal restrictions, including self-isolation. I never implied that they were following the leadership of Boris, just that they are doing the same thing as us, so if you think "the Liar" is being reckless about "the pox", the same applies to them.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
I follow @aliostad on Twitter, an Iranian living in the west. He was reporting what was happening inside Iran and it was terrifying to see. This was Feb 2020 before it came here. I was telling people I work with how bad it was going to be.
It's reasonable to ask whether politicians are making a decision supported by the advice of subject-matter experts or in opposition to that advice. Doesn't mean that they can't make that decision, but what's wrong with openness and accountability?
I mean the first article of the Treaty of Rome makes a declaration about "ever closer union" so everyone including the UK went in with their eyes open.
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
I don't agree. I think if you have direct evidence of the Commission, you will understand there are plenty of people who aren't batting for France or Germany - as on the Council - but for the EU itself.
Absolutely. They want to further the aims of "the organisation" as a supra-national entity. But without the Member States they are nothing and are powerless.
I don't think it is that they are powerless. It is, in my view, that the critique of the EU muddles areas driven by EU-led institutions, with the views of the block's member states, and refer to the two interchangeably when we consdier "ever closer union". On the accession of new member states, and the Euro, the latter. Standardised rules on the sale of bananas? Mainly the former.
One particular piece of EU legislation (on financial services) was described as a solution in search of a problem. The intention is good (consumer protection) but the solution goes overboard as to become unworkable. I continue to believe (as for example in this area) that the UK was better off in and leading the way than out.
Pretty much my view.
In fact my full view is that the UK’s “burden” was to envisage and push for a more flexible architecture (the concentric circles) to the EU, while retaining all the privileges of membership.
I know many on here say the UK never got its way but (a) I think this is mostly false; and (b) no statesman - not even Blair - was sufficiently attentive to the EU challenge and opportunity.
UKIP used to run a cute line about how often the UK had "lost" EU parliament votes. When you dug into it, you found that a lot of the time they were just counting things that UKIP had voted against and then just counted that as the UK losing. As if all those other UK MEPs didn't really count.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
Have to admit my reaction to that is along the lines of MarqueeMark. I feel like by the write up that I'm supposed to be very sympathetic on a tricky issue for this couple, but my gut reaction is they have chosen a path which means they will ask people to go above and beyond what the law requires now already, so a change to those restrictions won't make a blind bit of difference.
It's reasonable to ask whether politicians are making a decision supported by the advice of subject-matter experts or in opposition to that advice. Doesn't mean that they can't make that decision, but what's wrong with openness and accountability?
That's not what her tweet says though.
Maybe I'm misreading but the tweet seems to be asking whether any experts advised the course of action the government is taking. It's not saying that the politicians shouldn't decide.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
This government has been frightening me since before Covid was even known about.
Was it two or three glorious months. Come on...you felt just like everyone did in 1997 when Tone was crowned.
Anyone noticed that the deeper in trouble the Prime Minister gets the darker blue his suits get.?
Obviously been advised that it makes him look more serious which it does. Too late? I would hope so.
Corbyn got similar advice. Probably from Trump.
Anyone wanting to know the psychology of clothes speak to Proctor and Gamble's product managers
Anyone wanting to know the psychology of clothes speak to any of the longstanding tailors on Savile Row. While I'm sure the folk at Proctor and Gamble are happy in their shiny suits, thin ties and pointy shoes.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
Have to admit my reaction to that is along the lines of MarqueeMark. I feel like by the write up that I'm supposed to be very sympathetic on a tricky issue for this couple, but my gut reaction is they have chosen a path which means they will ask people to go above and beyond what the law requires now already, so a change to those restrictions won't make a blind bit of difference.
Same here. It's a funny choice of example though. I can think of several friends/acquaintances who are stuck in high-risk situations, despite doing all that they can to manage the risk - those who can be vaccinated have been, but are also told the vaccine probably won't reduce their chance of severe illness very much. Odd that the BBC couldn't find anyone like that to talk to.
BBC: The Kremlin says President Putin has decided to recognise the independence of two breakaway areas of Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists.
A Kremlin statement said Putin had told the French and German leaders he intended to sign a decree recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk areas as independent states.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
This government has been frightening me since before Covid was even known about.
Was it two or three glorious months. Come on...you felt just like everyone did in 1997 when Tone was crowned.
They weren't particularly glorious months. As I recall it, the few months between the election victory and the arrival of covid were filled largely with flooding and Australia being on fire. I think there was a war brewing somewhere too.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
One wonders what the right time would be.
I was going to say the same. For some people there will never be a right time. They will always want some form of restrictions. COVID will be with us for the foreseeable.
The government has been frightening us for two years. Perhaps two years ago, looking at pictures of Northern Italian hospitals, they thought they needed to. Whichever, it is absolutely not surprising that many people have suffered severe psychological damage as it appears with these two people.
This government has been frightening me since before Covid was even known about.
Was it two or three glorious months. Come on...you felt just like everyone did in 1997 when Tone was crowned.
July 2019 was when Boris became PM.
In terms of Covid, I was actually more worried before the government swung into action. There was a period of about a two weeks after I first head of the new coronavirus (in the Economist, January 2020) when I wasn't so worried. Then from mid February I was worried that we weren't doing enough. It was about a month later that I was finally satisfied the government seemed to get it.
The government's too-slow response running into March was poor but understandable, and far from the most worrying thing Boris Johnson has done as PM.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Are they? As each country has had completely different Covid rules / experiences they don't have the same restrictions to collectively drop.
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
Because it’s not stupid. Lots of countries are removing all restrictions, which makes it equivalent.
BBC: The Kremlin says President Putin has decided to recognise the independence of two breakaway areas of Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists.
A Kremlin statement said Putin had told the French and German leaders he intended to sign a decree recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk areas as independent states.
That's really good news. A Russian recognition of independence and autonomy is as solid and reliable as anything.
The logical conclusion from this argument is that the 2019 Tory majority could have been won by any number of non-Johnson leaders: so by Theresa May, David Cameron or, indeed, George Osborne.
I think the messenger was crucial. For a certain pivotal group of lifelong Labour voters to lend their votes to the Tories the party needed as its messenger a maverick leader - Johnson who had demonstrated that he was prepared even to break the rules (wonder if that might ever come back to bite him...) in an attempt to get Brexit through an obstructive parliament.
I distinctly remember a blog post on this site during the 2017-19 parliament declaring Corbyn to be the most popular politician in the country, according to polling - maybe that was more to do with everyone else being so unpopular. It wasn't at the time of the election, but the 2017 election shows that he wasn't quite as doomed to failure as is now assumed.
Just as many were prepared to overlook Johnson's many flaws in order to see through Brexit, there were plenty who seemed perfectly prepared to turn a blind eye to Corbyn's little racism problem in order to see through some form of People's Vote.
The question at the next election will be an entirely different one and it seems unlikely that Johnson will be the Tories' ideal messenger next time round.
BBC: The Kremlin says President Putin has decided to recognise the independence of two breakaway areas of Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists.
A Kremlin statement said Putin had told the French and German leaders he intended to sign a decree recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk areas as independent states.
And lo, Big Vladdy Putin has 'achieved' something without the need for war. So he can call it quits now.
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
On the one hand, that's sad
On the other hand, fuck 'em
There are always edge and corner cases.
Engineers always concentrate most of their thought on the edge and corner cases.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
IMPORTANT: EU diplomat says @JosepBorrellF was "free-lancing" when he said that he would table the Russia sanctions package on the back of a Kremlin recognition of Luhansk, Donetsk 'independence.' "What he said didn’t reflect the discussion in the room." @eu_eeas
@Heathener I'm not trying to doxx you, please don't doxx or deadname me. To do so is just unpleasant.
You don't need to agree with my politics, but on this site it is stronger when we treat everyone with respect and decency, whether we agree with them or not.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
The consensus on Twitter - such as it is - is that he will move forces into the newly "independent" statelets, effectively annexing them, and ALSO sweep down on Kiev to make sure of a change of government there
The legitimate Ukraine govt will shift to Lviv; Ukraine will be balkanised
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
The problem with that is that the line of control doesn't coincide with borders of the regions, so it still implies an invasion and full military conflict with Ukrainian forces.
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate
Somewhat ironic then that they are a trio of w******!
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
On the one hand, that's sad
On the other hand, fuck 'em
Wouldn't fancy being the BBC researcher tasked with finding those two
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
Someone was talking about a great floor earlier, and I assume it must have been this one - say what you like about Putin, and if you are Russian you can't, but he has some great location scouting
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
The problem with that is that the line of control doesn't coincide with borders of the regions, so it still implies an invasion and full military conflict with Ukrainian forces.
Ah, I see. So it's a justification for an invasion, as predicted all along.
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
"Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It's an inseparable part of our shared history, our comrades and relatives.
Translation - whether they like it or not.
If you're wondering why Putin would use this address to go on for so long about the history of another country, the answer is simple – he doesn't think Ukraine is a real country, and has made that pretty clear
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
He might still be giving this address when the war finishes.
Long and boring history lesson. Right now we're on Stalin's nationalities policy in the early 1920s. For now, you can admire Putin's phone and Windows XP desktop
Someone was talking about a great floor earlier, and I assume it must have been this one - say what you like about Putin, and if you are Russian you can't, but he has some great location scouting
Yet people over here complain about the cost of a studio or the wallpaper in No. 10...
Someone was talking about a great floor earlier, and I assume it must have been this one - say what you like about Putin, and if you are Russian you can't, but he has some great location scouting
Yet people over here complain about the cost of a studio or the wallpaper in No. 10...
Perhaps rightly...
I bet he wouldn't let the House of Parliament fall to bits. I may be warming to him.
Someone was talking about a great floor earlier, and I assume it must have been this one - say what you like about Putin, and if you are Russian you can't, but he has some great location scouting
Everything has to be enormous doesn't it? Including those hats the military top brass wear.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Why formally annex when recognition is de factor annexation? Anything that gives a hook for allies in the West to push back against any particularly punishing sanctions is probably worth it.
"Look, guys, what he did was wrong but at the end of the day he just recognised them, and they probably do want to be independent of Kiev, and it's not like he absorbed them into Russia itself. So really I think that slap on the wrist should be downgraded to a finger wag. So long as it is not too hard a wag"
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
He might still be giving this address when the war finishes.
You mean, you're not enjoying "Russian History with Vladimir Putin?" I think the whole series is fascinating. The fourteen hour episode on Tsar Alexander I's role in the formation of the Holy Alliance was a particular highlight.
Although this episode is also amazing. I'm learning so much.
Comments
May's would have started off with GB following the Single Market in goods for the sake of NI and trying to plot a, at least semi- coherent way out over a few years.
Boris's put us theoretically out of that market, but constantly seeking exceptions, exemptions and extensions to run away from the reality that little was sorted in terms of how to trade and to dig his way back, partly, in without anyone noticing. Once again, he thought the rules didn't apply to him.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/antibodies
We are going to see most countries unwinding large elements of their Covid plans as we all see Omicron fade into the background. Does that mean that all countries had the same restrictions and will move to the same post-restrictions set-up, likely following the leadership of Boris? No.
So why say something this stupid?
"Jen Davies, from Sleights, North Yorkshire, has been shielding since February 2020, with health issues including a suppressed immune system and heart issues. Her partner Alan Backhouse is her full-time carer - they have chosen not to be vaccinated because of fears of reactions to the vaccine.
She says they have few visitors, but those who do come are asked to wear masks, gloves and aprons and her partner sanitises every item that gets delivered to their home. They plan to continue living this way.
Jen says the restrictions being lifted comes "at a very wrong time" for them."
Is there no end to this Woke madness?
Alternatively.....
I do think that Boris is very happy the crisis has come along.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/denmark-lifts-covid-restrictions-intl/index.html
Norway: "The Norwegian Government is removing all regulatory measures against COVID-19, including the requirement to wear a face covering, keep a 1-metre distance, and the duty to go into isolation when people are sick."
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/koronavirus-covid-19/national-recommendations-and-rules/id2890588/
Sweden: "Sweden is set to lift all coronavirus restrictions by February 9, the government announced Thursday, as it joined the likes of the U.K., Denmark and Norway in downgrading the threat posed by COVID-19. "
https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-lifts-coronavirus-restrictions-madgalena-andersson-omicron-endemic/
But further, as to your point of whether "the EU" wants to do this or that. What the Brexiters never quite worked out was that "the EU" is simply an aggregation of its members. If people don't like the direction of the majority where a majority vote is all that is required for one decision or another, they can leave. I believe there has been precedent for this our recent past.
The EU provided when we are a member and provides now that we have left a convenient bogeyman for people to blame for just about any old thing.
Of course the virus itself was the original cause of this but dear god didn't the government and all the very same people who are decrying this crazy reckless step now to rid us of restrictions lay it on with a trowel thus imo inducing a level of general anxiety in the nation that will play out over the next few years. Long Covid my arse; what about the long term psychological damage that has been done by the extreme scaremongering these past two years.
@Mark_J_Harper
The Govt’s plan for living with Covid took a while to arrive, but I’m glad it’s here.
However, it’s disappointing that the Prime Minister has refused rapid action on reforming the Public Health Act 1984 so Ministers can no longer bring lockdowns into force by decree…"
https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1495814634280034310
Edit: good grief, my drafting is bad today.
I want us to put Covid behind us and box up many of the things we have all been stuck using these past two years. But we need to keep vigilant for new threats and have the stuff in a box ready to be pulled out.
I get the impression that Big Dog would scrap them all if he could.
Mind, it means that Wor Lass can cut short her self isolation. And stop sending me to fetch messages*.
*"Fetch messages" = running errands.
I see a piece earlier today is warning people not to fall for Sunak cutting NI back ahead of the next GE because of the impact of raising tax thresholds previously - should I discount that criticism of potential Tory policy because of who is criticising it?
.
It's neither possible nor desirable to carry on with statutory restrictions on the everyday lives of the whole population forever. This means that they have to stop and, given the nature of Omicron and the current trajectory of the pandemic, it's not going to help very much to keep on stalling. I don't agree with every facet of the Government's approach, but the fundamental principle that the rules should be repealed seems sound.
“Which public health expert advised abandoning testing and isolation?’
Response: politicians decided.
https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1495817979355078656
Who does she think should take the decision?
“Experts” (sic) like herself?
When Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014 it became an international pariah for years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468264
My first reaction was 'did it?'
My second was 'So it stopped being a pariah at some point despite doing it?'
In fact my full view is that the UK’s “burden” was to envisage and push for a more flexible architecture (the concentric circles) to the EU, while retaining all the privileges of membership.
I know many on here say the UK never got its way but (a) I think this is mostly false; and (b) no statesman - not even Blair - was sufficiently attentive to the EU challenge and opportunity.
https://twitter.com/parlyapp/status/1495827147763732480?s=21
Obviously been advised that it makes him look more serious which it does. Too late? I would hope so.
Corbyn got similar advice. Probably from Trump.
Anyone wanting to know the psychology of clothes speak to Procter and Gamble's product managers
A Kremlin statement said Putin had told the French and German leaders he intended to sign a decree recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk areas as independent states.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1495826995632033799
On the other hand, fuck 'em
In terms of Covid, I was actually more worried before the government swung into action. There was a period of about a two weeks after I first head of the new coronavirus (in the Economist, January 2020) when I wasn't so worried. Then from mid February I was worried that we weren't doing enough. It was about a month later that I was finally satisfied the government seemed to get it.
The government's too-slow response running into March was poor but understandable, and far from the most worrying thing Boris Johnson has done as PM.
I think the messenger was crucial. For a certain pivotal group of lifelong Labour voters to lend their votes to the Tories the party needed as its messenger a maverick leader - Johnson who had demonstrated that he was prepared even to break the rules (wonder if that might ever come back to bite him...) in an attempt to get Brexit through an obstructive parliament.
I distinctly remember a blog post on this site during the 2017-19 parliament declaring Corbyn to be the most popular politician in the country, according to polling - maybe that was more to do with everyone else being so unpopular. It wasn't at the time of the election, but the 2017 election shows that he wasn't quite as doomed to failure as is now assumed.
Just as many were prepared to overlook Johnson's many flaws in order to see through Brexit, there were plenty who seemed perfectly prepared to turn a blind eye to Corbyn's little racism problem in order to see through some form of People's Vote.
The question at the next election will be an entirely different one and it seems unlikely that Johnson will be the Tories' ideal messenger next time round.
#BREAKING: Ukrainian media reporting the National Security and Defense Council authorized the imposition of martial law in the country
https://twitter.com/InstaNewsAlerts/status/1495827994975391755?s=20&t=I9JsnNQeeX1Xmwj2pOLPxg
Engineers always concentrate most of their thought on the edge and corner cases.
IMPORTANT: EU diplomat says @JosepBorrellF was "free-lancing" when he said that he would table the Russia sanctions package on the back of a Kremlin recognition of Luhansk, Donetsk 'independence.' "What he said didn’t reflect the discussion in the room." @eu_eeas
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1495830970297204738
You don't need to agree with my politics, but on this site it is stronger when we treat everyone with respect and decency, whether we agree with them or not.
The legitimate Ukraine govt will shift to Lviv; Ukraine will be balkanised
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate
Somewhat ironic then that they are a trio of w******!
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495831978964361221
Translation - whether they like it or not.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495832492175204357
Power generally converts young men to a much older man. Just look at how Blair aged over ten years.
I am unsure if this is the same with women.
Perhaps rightly...
"Look, guys, what he did was wrong but at the end of the day he just recognised them, and they probably do want to be independent of Kiev, and it's not like he absorbed them into Russia itself. So really I think that slap on the wrist should be downgraded to a finger wag. So long as it is not too hard a wag"
Macron also played. Well done all
Although this episode is also amazing. I'm learning so much.