It’s genuinely good to know that, behind the rhetoric, most politicians can actually get along across the aisle.
Your numerous references to Gove in particular, are a great example of that.
Yes, in 13 years in Parliament I only encountered actual hostility twice, and various quite right-wing people were personally very helpful and friendly. My favourite was Oliver Letwin, because he was actually open to persuasion in committee debate - would withdraw an amendment if you were able to show why it wasn't a good idea. John Hayes had a relative in my constituency and passed on tips from her about issues that I might want to look into. And although I had a serious row with Ann Winterton which led to her temporary suspension from the Conservative Party and we avoided speaking for a while, eventually we agreed it was a pity to hold grudges (which tbh she had more cause to than I did) and shook hands amicably.
Essentially MPs of all colours have a lot in common - not just career choice but a rich range of stories of the weird and wonderful things and people that interact with MPs.
Proof that the world is better than we often think it to be.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere. And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown. To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.
Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.
Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).
It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.
I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
There was no change in 'advice' on masks, there was a sudden imposition of mandates that lasted from 1 to 2 years everywhere. How effective they were seems very debateable based on studies coming out and already published. I'd wager extremely ineffective given we are now 2.5 years into the pandemic and now there are 1.5 billion of them swimming in the sea. However i admit i am a hardcore anti masker as i believe my health protections are solely my choice and im also drawn to the recent suggestions 'asymptomatic spread' used as the excuse for compulsion was vastly overpushed.
Iro 'making up stories' about evidence to policy, if the government dont issue their roadmap its perfectly reasonable for me to plot my own path. They can always put me right. If im to be subjected to unreasonable restrictions i choose to assume any failure to properly support that is nefarious or based on unsupported reasoning. My life is not part of an experiment in public health policy and my risk is my responsibility.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere. And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown. To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.
Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.
Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).
It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.
I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.
Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?
Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.
"No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.
Charitable my arse.
Tries to work out which of 3 private schools like that that I think it is (as I can't remember where you live)..
But all 3 schools really do far less than they should do...
I will add all 3 private schools are up North, Eton actually does a lot locally and in the surrounding areas...
Eton sponsors two schools in the State sector, and runs a whole bundle of initiatives, does it not?
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
I've got one close friend and several acquaintances with Long Covid
One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail
She is absolutely NOT the kind of person to malinger. Dynamic, energetic, sardonic
That article is from Feb 2021, and when I last inquired, a few months ago, she STILL has Long Covid (tho significantly better). It's real
If we're swapping anecdotes I have an acquaintance who is still bedridden from his first Covid jab.
Anecdotes are interesting but not too much to go on.
I don't happen to know anyone with Long Covid but I have no doubt it's a thing.
Neither do I set much store on your story or mine in the great scheme of things.
Absolutely. I was just replying to anecdata with anecdata
BTW @Cookie wondered if there is some propensity for certain groups to get LC. That Mail article suggests it is especially prevalent in caucasian woman aged 30-50. That fits with my anecdata, oddly enough
Interesting and not a million miles away from the age of the Menopause.
(IANAE in being a woman, that said, it may amaze you to hear.)
Define "woman".....
and you thought posts since Boris going had a lot of comments...
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
You say no governments are taking this threat seriously, ergo it is not a threat
But China is still pursuing Zero Covid
"Shanghai fears second lockdown as China battles BA.5 covid variant - The Washington Post"
Hitherto, we have all presumed this Zero Covid policy is just a terrible error, or a byproduct of Xi's need to save face in 2022 etc etc
But what it, at least in part, they have looked at Long Covid and decided any societal pain is better than losing 20% (and growing) of the workforce to chronic illness? It sounds far-fetched but the phrase "far-fetched" has lost its impact in recent years
And let me underline I am NOT proposing Zero Covid or even new lockdowns. Fuck all that. If Long Covid becomes a major problem (arguably it is already) we will have to find different ways of dealing with it, not masks and lockdowns. Never again
I've been thinking about the economic/societal effects of long covid and also constant re-infections for a while now and casting around to find some decent research on it beyond my back-of-a-fag-packet guesswork. But there seems to be almost nothing out there. I'd have imagined governments/wonks would be giving it a huge amount of thought (even if our own is rather distracted of late) both from a health expenditure and a tax-receipts point of view. But... apparently not.
Quite baffling to me.
I had a think about it earlier, on here. And I wondered if governments don't WANT to address it because it is too depressing and too big a problem? Dunno. Could be many other reasons, of course
That said the Bank of England has begun to tackle it, and they see LC having major impacts on the labour market (and it is probably doing that already, hence the labour pool shrinking, with all the consequences of that)
Could be that 'The Government' - like a lot of us - was running high on adrenaline for two years and now quite fancies a trip to the seaside, a stiff g&t and watching the waves come in for a while.
It's also a great way for politicians to justify their actions who otherwise would face a serious reckoning from their electorates for shutting down their countries for two years. 'Ah yes, Covid may not have seemed that dangerous but it was really all because of Long Covid'
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
You say no governments are taking this threat seriously, ergo it is not a threat
But China is still pursuing Zero Covid
"Shanghai fears second lockdown as China battles BA.5 covid variant - The Washington Post"
Hitherto, we have all presumed this Zero Covid policy is just a terrible error, or a byproduct of Xi's need to save face in 2022 etc etc
But what it, at least in part, they have looked at Long Covid and decided any societal pain is better than losing 20% (and growing) of the workforce to chronic illness? It sounds far-fetched but the phrase "far-fetched" has lost its impact in recent years
And let me underline I am NOT proposing Zero Covid or even new lockdowns. Fuck all that. If Long Covid becomes a major problem (arguably it is already) we will have to find different ways of dealing with it, not masks and lockdowns. Never again
I've been thinking about the economic/societal effects of long covid and also constant re-infections for a while now and casting around to find some decent research on it beyond my back-of-a-fag-packet guesswork. But there seems to be almost nothing out there. I'd have imagined governments/wonks would be giving it a huge amount of thought (even if our own is rather distracted of late) both from a health expenditure and a tax-receipts point of view. But... apparently not.
Quite baffling to me.
My theory: Long covid seems to be one of those statistical problems in search of an actual issue. Like @Cookie I don't know anyone with issues beyond normal post viral fatigue. And almost everyone I know has had Covid.
I'd also say that I've suffered from crippling anxiety during periods of my life. Some of the symptoms seem very similar to that.
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400. She has cut back on spending on toothpaste, soap and washing powder and uses minimum lighting at night.
“If you open my fridge it’s like a single person is living there rather than a family,” she said. “It’s worse now than the pandemic. When I think about it, it’s enough to make my head explode. It is definitely grimmer than before.”
Faith Angwet, 37, a single mother of two from Southwark, south London, who used to work in fashion and retail, said her weekly shopping bill has risen from £200 during the pandemic to £400.
Surely even the Guardian knows this is bizarre. This is lazy journalism of a tabloid variety. Nothing on: How do you spend £400 a week shopping for three people? What is her income? Please tell us all about the father of the children and how much he is supporting or not? Is she working? Why is inflation 100% for her when it isn't for the rest of us?
This is elementary stuff. So many unasked questions. A proper story with proper analysis is what once the Guardian would have give us. Not clapped out Mirror/Mail stuff. Dismal.
The most obvious explanation is that somewhere along the line someone has said or written weekly when they meant monthly.
Which also would be lazy journalism. Checking facts matters.
Mr. (Miss? My apologies if I got that wrong), it's Mr. Dancer.
As if a woman would have such a mighty wiffle stick.
LOL no worries. If my mum had a mighty wiffle stick she would be regularly beating my dad around the head with it, so best keep them away from women as you say.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere. And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown. To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.
Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.
Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).
It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.
I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.
Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?
Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
Err because of all that fools on twitter who wear 16 masks, a plastic bag over their head and an iron lung, and still catch covid?
It was always blindingly obvious that people were not catching Covid in supermarkets.
Supermarkets are classic spreading events. Indoors, lots of people coming and going, many lingering 30 minutes or more, many doing something vaguely physical - pushing around trolleys, heaving bags of petfood, etc
A young woman just collapsed during Nadhim Zahawi’s speech in a stifling hot Churchill war rooms. Leadership challenger Suella Braverman is looking concerned at the back of the room. An ambulance is being called. #ToryLeadershipContest
And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.
Charitable my arse.
Tries to work out which of 3 private schools like that that I think it is (as I can't remember where you live)..
But all 3 schools really do far less than they should do...
I will add all 3 private schools are up North, Eton actually does a lot locally and in the surrounding areas...
Eton sponsors two schools in the State sector, and runs a whole bundle of initiatives, does it not?
Eton does a whole pile of stuff - the issue really isn't them the issue is elsewhere in the private school sector.
1 example at some point this week Eton will be hosting the end of school prom for a reasonably close secondary school - they've done it now for 20 odd years at a cost well below the going rate.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
It seems overly gloomy. I mean the UK government almost pissed the bed over Omicron and acted totally irrationally and its one of the most hawkish on libertarianism/freedom from restrictions. Given that, i find it unlikely LC is such a threat given that no government in the world is sending up the 'panic!' Bat symbol over it and a great number have been extremely squirrely over Covid throughout. Theres enough data. Theres no panic. Ergo.
But there really is cause for deep concern, we are already seeing failures in the labour market, due to Long Covid
"Now, an analysis from a Bank of England monetary committee member is one of the first to draw links between long covid and the tightening of the labor market. The chronic condition has been one of the main drivers of the shrinking labor pool in the UK, according to a May 9 speech from Michael Saunders, an external member of the bank’s nine-member committee"
Point out where that stats guy, linked downthread is wrong. Please. I'd love to see where he is obvs wrong. But I can't
My honest guess is that this potential problem is so huge governments are looking away. Because there is no solution. We can't shut down again. Zero Covid is impossible. So very widespread Long Covid - significantly affecting millions in the UK alone, and damaging economies worldwide - is baked in the future-pie
My feeling is theres a problem, its more intense from pre vaccine infections but its well short of apocalyptic. Tgey reckon 50 million of us have had it now? If there were a catastrophic LC problem we would be seeing 'the street where everyone is too sick to work' style reports. A lot of LC, yes, but a lot of 'light' LC amongst it In other words, not nothing but not everything. Between the extremes. A bit of a problem. Etc
It is a fallacy to say if it were serious it would also be obvious. Look at the cigarette/lung cancer link: stacks of data over 50+ years, but the link not obvious, to the extent that Doll was derided by a minority for even having it as a variable to look at.
Fair point, however 'smoking' wasn't the sole focus of health departments and governments for 2 years solid like Covid.
You say no governments are taking this threat seriously, ergo it is not a threat
But China is still pursuing Zero Covid
"Shanghai fears second lockdown as China battles BA.5 covid variant - The Washington Post"
Hitherto, we have all presumed this Zero Covid policy is just a terrible error, or a byproduct of Xi's need to save face in 2022 etc etc
But what it, at least in part, they have looked at Long Covid and decided any societal pain is better than losing 20% (and growing) of the workforce to chronic illness? It sounds far-fetched but the phrase "far-fetched" has lost its impact in recent years
And let me underline I am NOT proposing Zero Covid or even new lockdowns. Fuck all that. If Long Covid becomes a major problem (arguably it is already) we will have to find different ways of dealing with it, not masks and lockdowns. Never again
I've been thinking about the economic/societal effects of long covid and also constant re-infections for a while now and casting around to find some decent research on it beyond my back-of-a-fag-packet guesswork. But there seems to be almost nothing out there. I'd have imagined governments/wonks would be giving it a huge amount of thought (even if our own is rather distracted of late) both from a health expenditure and a tax-receipts point of view. But... apparently not.
Quite baffling to me.
My theory: Long covid seems to be one of those statistical problems in search of an actual issue. Like @Cookie I don't know anyone with issues beyond normal post viral fatigue. And almost everyone I know has had Covid.
I'd also say that I've suffered from crippling anxiety during periods of my life. Some of the symptoms seem very similar to that.
I have a mild dose of long covid, not that it has stopped me working. I am now 4 months post infection and was triple vaxxed. I had about 4 weeks of fatigue afterwards, then seemed back to normal for about 6 weeks. Since then I get runs of fatigue and muscle aches for a few days each week or so, quite unpredictably, with headaches etc. Not missed a day of work with it, and not in the slightest anxious or depressed.
I expect it will wear off in time, but I have deliberately chosen a break doing very little, and eating well in order to regenerate. It seems to be working at the moment. I anticipate that it will wear off in time.
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
At the moment in terms of MP endorsements it looks like Sunak and Mordaunt as the final 2 sent to the membership unless things change dramatically in the next few days.
Though Tugendhat and Truss are not far behind in joint 3rd
I'm very much hoping that Kemi Badenoch can overtake one or both of those in order to go the membership.
Unless I'm missing something, we can't really infer who will be in the final two at this stage with too much certainty - the redistribution of the votes from the also-rans will be hugely complex and uncertain, and it will be far from the case that all of candidate x's support can be assumed to transfer to candidate y.
That said, I think HYUFD is in the right ballpark here - my expectation is Sunak and one other: I think the other is more likely to be Truss than Mordaunt, but Mordaunt is probably close. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that this outcome is 'likely' yet - just more likely than any of the numerous other possible permutations.
One of the reasons I would be more confident in Sunak v Truss than Sunak v Mordaunt is that I think Sunak and Mordaunt are fishing in the same pool a little in terms of MPs, whereas the right of the Tory Party are more likely to go for Braverman/Badenoch/Priti and then transfer to Truss (IMHO).
That said I’m not sure there’s any guarantee Rishi gets to the second round. Yes he’s ahead in declared support but he’s not that far ahead of the pack. He is probably the most likely to get there at this stage though.
Rishi's problem is that he would probably lose the membership vote to most of the other (serious) candidates apart from Jeremy Hunt and possibly Tom Tugendhat.
It’s genuinely good to know that, behind the rhetoric, most politicians can actually get along across the aisle.
Your numerous references to Gove in particular, are a great example of that.
Yes, in 13 years in Parliament I only encountered actual hostility twice, and various quite right-wing people were personally very helpful and friendly. My favourite was Oliver Letwin, because he was actually open to persuasion in committee debate - would withdraw an amendment if you were able to show why it wasn't a good idea. John Hayes had a relative in my constituency and passed on tips from her about issues that I might want to look into. And although I had a serious row with Ann Winterton which led to her temporary suspension from the Conservative Party and we avoided speaking for a while, eventually we agreed it was a pity to hold grudges (which tbh she had more cause to than I did) and shook hands amicably.
Essentially MPs of all colours have a lot in common - not just career choice but a rich range of stories of the weird and wonderful things and people that interact with MPs.
This is a great insight, but also a sentiment I have heard from many MPs over the years. You were in parliament between 1997 and 2010, but it seems as if you still have reasonable contact with current MPs. Do you think that this "across the house" respect/friendship has been decreasing since 2010? It seems to be portrayed that way in the media.
In the US this seems to be a very strong trend, with not only the political opinion splitting but also the tolerance to different views dwindling. It is even more of a problem in the US as the overall government/parliament structure relies on all three levels finding some kined of consensus.
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Yes. Sunak gives the impression of being the Davos candidate, the lover of big money and all in favour of Net Zero, no matter what the impact on ordinary people.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
Gawd, Fizzy Lizzie's leadership pitch video is dull. Are they all this boring?
I think it's very much 'don't scare the horses' phase.
Maybe it's the voice (which is very unfair, of course). Just watched Rishi's and it's not exactly exciting, but I didn't drop off half way through.
I kinda want one of them to do a rap or something, I guess. Rishi's missed a trick by not getting Elton in to do a new version of Are you ready for love, he's got the money for it, afterall. Even May had the Dancing Queen moment
Hey pretty baby, are you ready for me It's your good rockin' daddy down from Tennessee
The builders outside are doubly annoying. Noisy (ok, not too bad, to be fair), and I feel I can't slack off work despite the heat because then they'd have a better work ethic than me.
The swine.
One thing I note from a quick tour of several building sites today (from outside); some large; some small. When I was younger, builders would strip off their tops once the temperature got above 20 degrees, there was a square inch of blue sky and the wind was anything less than hurricane.
Today everyone was wearing shirts and/or high-viz jackets. Even on a small private site.
Must be stifling. It used to be hideous wearing a hard-hat all day when it was hot. I knew one man who used to put an old flattened sock filled with ice in his hat, and it would keep him cool for much of the day.
Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).
The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.
Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.
That isn't the substantive part of my comment
Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work
And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century
As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial
And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial. It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.
(There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).
It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes: 1 - I hate these 2 - They are therefore wrong 3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping 4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.
And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic" 5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.
Denial is comforting.
As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.
It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians) Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs. It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives. Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.
Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.
All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere. And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown. To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.
Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.
Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).
It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.
I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.
Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?
Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.
"No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
Mr. (Miss? My apologies if I got that wrong), it's Mr. Dancer.
As if a woman would have such a mighty wiffle stick.
LOL no worries. If my mum had a mighty wiffle stick she would be regularly beating my dad around the head with it, so best keep them away from women as you say.
The builders outside are doubly annoying. Noisy (ok, not too bad, to be fair), and I feel I can't slack off work despite the heat because then they'd have a better work ethic than me.
The swine.
One thing I note from a quick tour of several building sites today (from outside); some large; some small. When I was younger, builders would strip off their tops once the temperature got above 20 degrees, there was a square inch of blue sky and the wind was anything less than hurricane.
Today everyone was wearing shirts and/or high-viz jackets. Even on a small private site.
Must be stifling. It used to be hideous wearing a hard-hat all day when it was hot. I knew one man who used to put an old flattened sock filled with ice in his hat, and it would keep him cool for much of the day.
I often did that on hot day in the mountains. Find some old snow, stuff it in a hat. Initially it is a bit numbing, but it does work.
Surely it is less hot wearing a t-shirt than nothing, though? You can get hi-vis t-shirts if you need such a thing.
Remarkable how many Tory leaders are in trouble with their taxes. Feels like we are going full American pretty soon in terms of leaders having to release previous tax returns. Future political candidates take note!
The state is too large. We need to grow the economy, not the % of GDP that is collected in tax.
I'd prefer:
Truss, Mordaunt or Tom T.
You can't grow the economy by cutting back Government though.
We need to identify how we can improve productivity / efficiency because until we do that we are just going to be a low wage economy.
You absolutely can grow the economy by cutting taxation on business. And by ensuring people keep more of their income every month.
Which will also help to fuel inflation. Those of us who lived through the 1970s and 1980s know haw damaging inflation is. Getting Inflation down should be the number one economic priority, higher than growth.
Indeed it is worth listening to Callaghans speech from 1976:
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step. Higher inflation followed by higher unemployment. We have just escaped from the highest rate of inflation this country has known; we have not yet escaped from the consequences: high unemployment…that is the history of the last 20 years."
It is often forgotten that initially Callaghan did quite well with his plan, with inflation down from the heights of the Barbar boom, until the fateful Winter of Discontent.
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Yes. Sunak gives the impression of being the Davos candidate, the lover of big money and all in favour of Net Zero, no matter what the impact on ordinary people.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
If the MPs decide that is not what the membership wants, he won't get that far.
Plenty of scope for fun and games. No-one is sufficiently far ahead to be immune, and deals to bring a bunch of MPs in exchange for a top job will clearly be cut.
I think I'll stick with Mordaunt v Truss, with Mordaunt to win.
New polling from @IpsosUK highlights challenge new PM will face.
A Lab govt under Starmer seen as more likely than new Con govt to
- improve public services +19 - reduce regional inequalities +13 - reduce cost of living +12 - act with integrity +12 - offer GB a fresh start +11
Big problems for the Tories here
Any actual numbers published, or just the differences?
It has the Tories ahead 36 to 34 on growing the economy and 35 to 34 back ahead on cutting tax and 39 to 37 on who will win the next election as well as the more problematic figures above
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Yes. Sunak gives the impression of being the Davos candidate, the lover of big money and all in favour of Net Zero, no matter what the impact on ordinary people.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
I think the tory membership, and your average tory voter, are well to the right of the typical MP. I don't know if they realise this.
Remarkable how many Tory leaders are in trouble with their taxes. Feels like we are going full American pretty soon in terms of leaders having to release previous tax returns. Future political candidates take note!
That's Bernie Ecclestone's political career fucked then.....
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Remarkable how many Tory leaders are in trouble with their taxes. Feels like we are going full American pretty soon in terms of leaders having to release previous tax returns. Future political candidates take note!
That's Bernie Ecclestone's political career fucked then.....
I am sure Bernie will be along "shortly" to give us an update.
New polling from @IpsosUK highlights challenge new PM will face.
A Lab govt under Starmer seen as more likely than new Con govt to
- improve public services +19 - reduce regional inequalities +13 - reduce cost of living +12 - act with integrity +12 - offer GB a fresh start +11
Big problems for the Tories here
Any actual numbers published, or just the differences?
It has the Tories ahead 36 to 34 on growing the economy and 35 to 34 back ahead on cutting tax and 39 to 37 on who will win the next election as well as the more problematic figures above
Oh, I gathered that CHB would have posted only selectively because there must have been more than those five questions polled.
But the point is that those figures are meaningless without a sense of the don't knows, as well as being meaningless because they're in the middle of a Tory leadership contest...
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
I think there is a case for different rules when in government. MP's know who would make the best PM. In Opposition, there is a case that voters might be better placed to judge who might win power. This applies to Labour as well.
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Whatever....
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
The problem with leaving it to MPs is it leaves all those areas without a Tory MP without a say in the process. Not that I am necessarily arguing in favour of the current arrangement.
To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).
We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).
We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).
All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
I've got one close friend and several acquaintances with Long Covid
One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail
She is absolutely NOT the kind of person to malinger. Dynamic, energetic, sardonic
That article is from Feb 2021, and when I last inquired, a few months ago, she STILL has Long Covid (tho significantly better). It's real
If we're swapping anecdotes I have an acquaintance who is still bedridden from his first Covid jab.
Anecdotes are interesting but not too much to go on.
I don't happen to know anyone with Long Covid but I have no doubt it's a thing.
Neither do I set much store on your story or mine in the great scheme of things.
Absolutely. I was just replying to anecdata with anecdata
BTW @Cookie wondered if there is some propensity for certain groups to get LC. That Mail article suggests it is especially prevalent in caucasian woman aged 30-50. That fits with my anecdata, oddly enough
Interesting and not a million miles away from the age of the Menopause.
(IANAE in being a woman, that said, it may amaze you to hear.)
It is not that close to menopause if LC is 30 to 50, and menopause is typically 45 to 55.
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
The problem with leaving it to MPs is it leaves all those areas without a Tory MP without a say in the process. Not that I am necessarily arguing in favour of the current arrangement.
But that's no different to how Bozo became PM in the first place. 360 Tory MPs were elected and they are the people who kept Bozo in No 10 and now need to pick his replacement.
Remarkable how many Tory leaders are in trouble with their taxes. Feels like we are going full American pretty soon in terms of leaders having to release previous tax returns. Future political candidates take note!
Is that to do with a surprizing number of them being multi-millionaires, and not subject to the standard job / PAYE position of most of us?
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Problem is Sunak knows the real situation (which is seriously bad) and the rest of the candidates either don't know the real situation or are preferring to ignore it.
@SebastianEPayne More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.
"The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "
Right, here’s how they should do it: Every constituency in the UK is represented by either its MP, or if it doesn’t have an MP, by, I don’t know, whatever title the Tories give to whoever is nominally in charge. MPs votes are each worth 10; other constituencies votes are worth between 1 and 7, proportionate to the number of party members in that seat. Elections are done by AV, and submitted all in one go.
Thus, all members are represented, albeit indirectly, and all constituencies are able to ensure they are not overlooked. Prospective leaders will have to build a coalition across the whole country. Votes will be in the hands of those who have most interest in appealing to the wider electorate. And you avoid the situation where constituencies with hardly any Tories have a disproportionate influence in choosing the leader.
Maximum banter would be BoZo sacking him now for being unhinged
I love the enthusiasm of our PB Tory friends on here who are convinced changing the label on the bottle will make the wine less dreary, acidic and downright unpalatable.
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Whatever....
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
.... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
@SebastianEPayne More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.
"The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Whatever....
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
.... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
Exactly. Not a leader to face the electors. But a bed-blocker.
@SebastianEPayne More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.
"The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Yes. Sunak gives the impression of being the Davos candidate, the lover of big money and all in favour of Net Zero, no matter what the impact on ordinary people.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
If the MPs decide that is not what the membership wants, he won't get that far.
Plenty of scope for fun and games. No-one is sufficiently far ahead to be immune, and deals to bring a bunch of MPs in exchange for a top job will clearly be cut.
I think I'll stick with Mordaunt v Truss, with Mordaunt to win.
Either of those two would make Sir Keir a very happy man. The one he would fear would be Sunak. I don't think any normal person would think Liz Truss is suitable to become PM. She puts the LIGHT into lightweight!
I accept that Penny Mordaunt has the novelty factor but after a good nights sleep it'll occur even to Tories that she's a candidate with no known ability or judgement. A continuity Boris maybe.
Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber
"Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.
"Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.
It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.
A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”
Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.
Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.
Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.
She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.”
When I ran the maths yesterday (I am very sad) I had Rishi and Mordaunt in the final, but Mordaunt and Badenoch were very close. Truss could could conceivably come through if I twist my assumptions a bit.
I now think it will be two of those four: Rishi, Mordaunt, Badenoch and Truss.
@SebastianEPayne More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.
"The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Whatever....
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
.... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.
I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber
"Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.
"Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.
It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.
A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”
Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.
Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.
Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.
She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.”
Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Whatever....
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
.... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
Exactly. Not a leader to face the electors. But a bed-blocker.
You can't do that when electing a new PM though.
I can't see past a Sunak/Truss runoff with Truss trouncing Sunak.
Common sense should exclude everyone else except TomT. and PennyM. from the runoff. But I fear Tom with fall short on experience and Penny on her wokery.
If people want to shop at out-of-town centres, let them, but personally I strongly suspect such centres are effectively subsidised by the way planning law operates, and they leave behind depressed town centres which is a kind of “cost” in itself.
American is littered with these soulless big-box parks, but they have the space.
I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that the neatest solution is to enable easier car-parking adjacent to town centres.
This requires active planning by local authorities though and Britain has the weakest such authorities in Western Europe (bar possibly Ireland).
The builders outside are doubly annoying. Noisy (ok, not too bad, to be fair), and I feel I can't slack off work despite the heat because then they'd have a better work ethic than me.
The swine.
One thing I note from a quick tour of several building sites today (from outside); some large; some small. When I was younger, builders would strip off their tops once the temperature got above 20 degrees, there was a square inch of blue sky and the wind was anything less than hurricane.
Today everyone was wearing shirts and/or high-viz jackets. Even on a small private site.
Must be stifling. It used to be hideous wearing a hard-hat all day when it was hot. I knew one man who used to put an old flattened sock filled with ice in his hat, and it would keep him cool for much of the day.
I often did that on hot day in the mountains. Find some old snow, stuff it in a hat. Initially it is a bit numbing, but it does work.
Surely it is less hot wearing a t-shirt than nothing, though? You can get hi-vis t-shirts if you need such a thing.
Thai building workers tend to wear shirts (and trousers) of course. And it's quite hot in Thailand! My Thai relatives have been complaining about the heat here over the last couple of days, though.
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Problem is Sunak knows the real situation (which is seriously bad) and the rest of the candidates either don't know the real situation or are preferring to ignore it.
Sunak knows the real situation because he caused it.
The obvious move is Javid backs Sunak with Javid as Sunak's CoE.
However, I'm increasingly of the view the bet to do is short Sunak. He hasn't got the momentum I think he thought he would and it's clear there is a fairly large 'stop Sunak' movement out there.
Still only 10 backers for the Saj. Price flying out on Betfair..
Yeah, I think him and Sunak are too similar (in terms of their MP backers, not their racial back ground)
From the current situation, It would appear Sunak has a good shot at the final two.
I am starting to wonder whether a Sunak premiership might split the tories very badly. Not quite a corn laws event, perhaps, but something of that ilk.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
Yes. Sunak gives the impression of being the Davos candidate, the lover of big money and all in favour of Net Zero, no matter what the impact on ordinary people.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
If the MPs decide that is not what the membership wants, he won't get that far.
Plenty of scope for fun and games. No-one is sufficiently far ahead to be immune, and deals to bring a bunch of MPs in exchange for a top job will clearly be cut.
I think I'll stick with Mordaunt v Truss, with Mordaunt to win.
Either of those two would make Sir Keir a very happy man. The one he would fear would be Sunak. I don't think any normal person would think Liz Truss is suitable to become PM. She puts the LIGHT into lightweight!
I accept that Penny Mordaunt has the novelty factor but after a good nights sleep it'll occur even to Tories that she's a candidate with no known ability or judgement. A continuity Boris maybe.
The year is 2033, Liz Truss has been PM for 11 years and is looking at a snap election as Labour choose the ghost of Bob Crow as their new leader. Everyone celebrates July 11th as the day that Rogerdamus ensured the end of the Labour party with his nonsense anti-Midasian predictions...
Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy Maclean is… a bit shit. Sorry
I started on that a couple of years ago. Got to the bit where he was wandering pre-war Russia, shaking off his handlers, then kind of gave up. I should pick it back up and read about his war. The North African campaign and the special forces it spawned - Long Range Desert Group, SAS, Popski's Private Army - I find quite interesting. I had an article about the LRDG published in a history magazine a couple of years ago. The nascent SAS would've probably died off soon after their abortive first operation if it wasn't for the LRDG.
The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.
The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.
Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.
It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.
How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?
My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......
I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise. c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job. d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
Interesting. How the Tories should do this should be paralleled with how other parties do it.
Over the years the Tories have tried variations on:
Magic Circle Grey Suits MPs MPs and party members.
There are obvious objections to all of them. The question is not what is best, the question is what is least worst. All the proposals for change involve some sort of circular change, back to something that has already been found wanting.
PBers coalesce to some extent around three very general views, (I exaggerate but still): MPS are self interested herd of sheep-like idiots Party members are more or less idiots The voters in elections are mostly idiots.
Which brings you back to the Magic Circle and Grey Suits. Which to say the least had some democratic deficit issues.
Systems have given us in recent times: Corbyn, IDS, Boris, The Wrong Miliband, Swinson, Farron, Salmond, Mrs T May, Brown.
And rejected: The other Miliband, Rory, Ken Clarke, Kendall, Cooper, Burnham, Hunt, and others I have forgotten.
If there is a lesson to learn except that the human race is insane I have no idea what it might be, or what system might be an improvement, except doing it through the National Lottery.
Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber
"Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.
"Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.
It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.
A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”
Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.
Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.
Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.
She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.”
Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced
and that replacement needs to be outside London.
Didn't we all tell those twits to move to an effing boat?
But don't they have a budget for a bucket in the £22bn?
Full admission, my daughter goes to private school and my son will when he is old enough.
British private schools are internationally leading; and although mentally I accept that they should not be given tax breaks, my heart says why disturb the existing, successful eco-system?
Britain spends roughly the same on education as its peers, and PISA results are “ok”, or even “good”.
The issue seems to be a large cohort at the bottom of people leaving school without basic skills, especially outside London.
Comments
Priti Patel ally admits sharing 'dirty dossier' branding Rishi Sunak a liar who cannot be trusted on tax
Patrick Robertson is listed as document author on meta data. He denies writing it but says he shared it
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-leadership-race-prime-minister-latest-khn5n55fs
Iro 'making up stories' about evidence to policy, if the government dont issue their roadmap its perfectly reasonable for me to plot my own path. They can always put me right. If im to be subjected to unreasonable restrictions i choose to assume any failure to properly support that is nefarious or based on unsupported reasoning. My life is not part of an experiment in public health policy and my risk is my responsibility.
"No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
2020 Accounts say £100m over 5 years if I read it correctly.
https://www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Eton-College-2020-Accounts.pdf
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1546481478770597888
https://twitter.com/annaisaac/status/1546465056463982594
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyunxvyIyQ
Leadership challenger Suella Braverman is looking concerned at the back of the room.
An ambulance is being called. #ToryLeadershipContest
1 example at some point this week Eton will be hosting the end of school prom for a reasonably close secondary school - they've done it now for 20 odd years at a cost well below the going rate.
A Lab govt under Starmer seen as more likely than new Con govt to
- improve public services +19
- reduce regional inequalities +13
- reduce cost of living +12
- act with integrity +12
- offer GB a fresh start +11
Big problems for the Tories here
I expect it will wear off in time, but I have deliberately chosen a break doing very little, and eating well in order to regenerate. It seems to be working at the moment. I anticipate that it will wear off in time.
The tax cutters tolerated Johnson because he had a huge mandate and kept talking about lowering taxes.
Sunak? not so much.
You were in parliament between 1997 and 2010, but it seems as if you still have reasonable contact with current MPs. Do you think that this "across the house" respect/friendship has been decreasing since 2010? It seems to be portrayed that way in the media.
In the US this seems to be a very strong trend, with not only the political opinion splitting but also the tolerance to different views dwindling. It is even more of a problem in the US as the overall government/parliament structure relies on all three levels finding some kined of consensus.
I suspect the membership will vote for whoever is left running against him, if that’s how it plays out.
It's your good rockin' daddy down from Tennessee
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AINUPFbFpqg&ved=2ahUKEwjN0v-F9vD4AhXGVMAKHT-XCbkQwqsBegQIUxAE&usg=AOvVaw0k6YMOCkn38wmcCvWMlh58
Today everyone was wearing shirts and/or high-viz jackets. Even on a small private site.
Must be stifling. It used to be hideous wearing a hard-hat all day when it was hot. I knew one man who used to put an old flattened sock filled with ice in his hat, and it would keep him cool for much of the day.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/11/next-tory-leader-whos-backing-whom-our-working-list/
Would you like it even hotter? I know some will…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFfMKXgV-U
Surely it is less hot wearing a t-shirt than nothing, though? You can get hi-vis t-shirts if you need such a thing.
Or, you could be "not a twat" and post a link to the data.
Feels like we are going full American pretty soon in terms of leaders having to release previous tax returns.
Future political candidates take note!
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step. Higher inflation followed by higher unemployment. We have just escaped from the highest rate of inflation this country has known; we have not yet escaped from the consequences: high unemployment…that is the history of the last 20 years."
https://youtu.be/76ImzIwB1-k
It is often forgotten that initially Callaghan did quite well with his plan, with inflation down from the heights of the Barbar boom, until the fateful Winter of Discontent.
*Well, their accounts. Busted's, too. I never knew which was which in McBusted, to be honest.
Plenty of scope for fun and games. No-one is sufficiently far ahead to be immune, and deals to bring a bunch of MPs in exchange for a top job will clearly be cut.
I think I'll stick with Mordaunt v Truss, with Mordaunt to win.
https://twitter.com/cjmckeon/status/1546472496597291009?t=GGCxaTI03Q2ZfqMhpKlEhQ&s=19
a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.
And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?
The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.
So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
But the point is that those figures are meaningless without a sense of the don't knows, as well as being meaningless because they're in the middle of a Tory leadership contest...
MP's know who would make the best PM.
In Opposition, there is a case that voters might be better placed to judge who might win power.
This applies to Labour as well.
Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.
We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
Not that I am necessarily arguing in favour of the current arrangement.
Maximum banter would be BoZo sacking him now for being unhinged
More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.
"The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473
"I've been to the year 3000
Not much has changed but they lived underwater"
Anyway, I must be off. Stay cool, everyone.
Every constituency in the UK is represented by either its MP, or if it doesn’t have an MP, by, I don’t know, whatever title the Tories give to whoever is nominally in charge.
MPs votes are each worth 10; other constituencies votes are worth between 1 and 7, proportionate to the number of party members in that seat.
Elections are done by AV, and submitted all in one go.
Thus, all members are represented, albeit indirectly, and all constituencies are able to ensure they are not overlooked. Prospective leaders will have to build a coalition across the whole country. Votes will be in the hands of those who have most interest in appealing to the wider electorate. And you avoid the situation where constituencies with hardly any Tories have a disproportionate influence in choosing the leader.
Sorted.
That doesn’t matter to me, but I know it does for some.
Bad Enoch
"And your great-great-great granddaughter is pretty fine"
Perhaps they should vote for the Party Chairman, but not the Prime Minister.
The criticisms upthread by @Barney are spot-on.
Or anti-banning it?
You can't do that when electing a new PM though.
I accept that Penny Mordaunt has the novelty factor but after a good nights sleep it'll occur even to Tories that she's a candidate with no known ability or judgement. A continuity Boris maybe.
Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber
"Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.
"Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.
It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.
A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”
Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.
Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.
Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.
She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.”
I now think it will be two of those four: Rishi, Mordaunt, Badenoch and Truss.
My money is on Mordaunt.
I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
and that replacement needs to be outside London.
Common sense should exclude everyone else except TomT. and PennyM. from the runoff. But I fear Tom with fall short on experience and Penny on her wokery.
American is littered with these soulless big-box parks, but they have the space.
I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that the neatest solution is to enable easier car-parking adjacent to town centres.
This requires active planning by local authorities though and Britain has the weakest such authorities in Western Europe (bar possibly Ireland).
But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?
That'll help at the pumps.
Over the years the Tories have tried variations on:
Magic Circle
Grey Suits
MPs
MPs and party members.
There are obvious objections to all of them. The question is not what is best, the question is what is least worst. All the proposals for change involve some sort of circular change, back to something that has already been found wanting.
PBers coalesce to some extent around three very general views, (I exaggerate but still):
MPS are self interested herd of sheep-like idiots
Party members are more or less idiots
The voters in elections are mostly idiots.
Which brings you back to the Magic Circle and Grey Suits. Which to say the least had some democratic deficit issues.
Systems have given us in recent times: Corbyn, IDS, Boris, The Wrong Miliband, Swinson, Farron, Salmond, Mrs T May, Brown.
And rejected: The other Miliband, Rory, Ken Clarke, Kendall, Cooper, Burnham, Hunt, and others I have forgotten.
If there is a lesson to learn except that the human race is insane I have no idea what it might be, or what system might be an improvement, except doing it through the National Lottery.
But don't they have a budget for a bucket in the £22bn?
British private schools are internationally leading; and although mentally I accept that they should not be given tax breaks, my heart says why disturb the existing, successful eco-system?
Britain spends roughly the same on education as its peers, and PISA results are “ok”, or even “good”.
The issue seems to be a large cohort at the bottom of people leaving school without basic skills, especially outside London.
Name your famous people. I have a tenuous connection