My own quasi-fearless guess, is that this Mother will NOT be bounced out of the Mother of Parliaments by his fellow MPs.
For reasons legal AND political.
Why legal? I get the political point, although I don't really think that he has the numbers. But there isn't really a legal route for him here - Pannick is doing his best for Johnson but, ultimately, the Committee can decide Johnson is lying (the clue being his lips moving), Parliament can endorse any sanction, and there just isn't a legal route of appeal that has any prospect of success. The Pannick submissions drip with frustration at that, but that's largely because he's a clever man and knows it's true.
On a technical point, it also wouldn't be MPs bouncing him out. The Uxbridge residents signing a recall petition that would do that, although it's surely a formality the signatures will follow if the conditions are met to launch one.
Yes, this is purely political. It should still be fair, but when MPs whinge that a process of parliament does not run like the courts I bet they dont follow that thought through to all the other processes.
He can always stand in a recall by election, even if the party did not back him, which it would. Ultimately the electorate would decide who is their MP, so any MP in such a situation cannot whine about being kicked out.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
If they'd given Johnson half a dozen fines, as was probably warranted, it would have made it a lot harder for him to survive as PM, and I presume the police really didn't want to be seen as responsible for defenestrating a PM.
I'm not sure that's true, since the multiple fines would all have been for the same thing. The defence/bluster of "I didn't think I was doing anything wrong" isn't really hurt by having done the same thing on multiple occasions.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
It does make it more likely it was knowingly as many more opportunity to understand things
No, that doesn't follow. The first time anyone actually thought that was a breach of the rules was when police issued the FPN.
Yes, but they should have understood and the more events they held the more they should have checked and understood the rules and guidance. Do something as a one off and you might mess up. Do it over and over and you should have checked properly, and thus determined your first check was wrong.
If you checked once, why would other checks come up with a different result? Your assumptions aren't going to change.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I dunno. Calling a racist a racist twenty years ago, and finding that the fact that they were identified as a racist didn't stop them being racist, doesn't mean it's not right to say they're racist.
It's not the word racist that's a problem. It's the word institutional.
And it's the institution that needs sorting out. We've had twenty years or more of the 'just a few rotten apples' nonsense.
I'm not putting up a few rotten apples as a counter argument.
What I'm arguing is that you need a story that will create change, that will change the culture away from covering up for your colleagues to doing what's right by the public.
I don't think that the label, "institutionally " helps with that process.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
The problem I have with Partygate. Boris Johnson, dishonest, malign and incompetent, should never have been within a thousand miles of the premiership. Attending a couple of unauthorised parties is neither here nor there, but that's what's brought him down.
Isn't the point simply that the wider public were in fact making quite major sacrifices, and almost everyone has a sad story of a wedding cancelled, an elderly relative dying alone, kids missing out on the ordinary social life involved in growing up etc.
So the idea of the person making the rules essentially ignoring them himself is f***ing irksome to large numbers of people in a way that other manifestations of Johnson dishonesty, rule-breaking, and general arseholery aren't so much (even if, purely objectively, they are more heinous examples of misbehaviour).
Good point.
Do you think if Johnson had been somewhat apologetic for his behaviour and acknowledged those sacrifices it would have been accepted by they public?
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
But that may be EXACTLY what the next pandemic requires.
Try this. There is a new, highly contagious and utterly malign disease that leaves adults feeling poorly, but has a very high likelihood of causing children to either die or being left horribly blighted for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Medical Officer says we need an indefinite lockdown until we break its hold.
But you have put laws in place saying that we can never have an indefinite lockdown. We are then having to rely on the courts upholding the notion that one Parliament is not able to bind its successors...
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
To start with law probably was needed for the sort of extreme measures needed to prevent a collapse. I dont think guidance would have cut it.
But it should have been sunsetted much earlier and guidance would then have been sufficient, and penalties never needed to be so high.
If there ends up a by election will Johnson even stand ? He is bound to lose.
Will he even be allowed to be an official Conservative candidate?
They allowed that chap in Wales to run in a byelection after conviction didn't they? So Boris would be fine.
Another reason Paterson was an idiot - he quit in disgust at being held accountable even though he'd probably have been returned.
Yeah, but he was one of the 450 MPs for whom elections are a once in four or five year inconvenience and a formality. He’s not one of the little people like us.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
If there ends up a by election will Johnson even stand ? He is bound to lose.
Will he even be allowed to be an official Conservative candidate?
They allowed that chap in Wales to run in a byelection after conviction didn't they? So Boris would be fine.
Another reason Paterson was an idiot - he quit in disgust at being held accountable even though he'd probably have been returned.
That chap in Wales wasn't disciplined by the House whilst Prime Minister, though, was he? He was just some bloke nobody much had ever heard of. Not the guy leading the country through the worst pandemic in a century, killing 200,000 plus of us and threatening mortal danger to the economy. That bloke might just be in rather more difficulty.
I suspect the point is moot as he'd just not want to stand. It'd almost inevitably be a humiliating defeat in a seat that isn't safe at a General Election as it is. If there is a way back for Johnson post-recall petition (if it does come to that) it probably involves sitting this out and popping up in another seat in 2024/5.
Maybe that's how he does a chicken run without appearing to abandon Uxbridge.
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Covid was just too serious an issue for BoJo to be in charge of; lives were at stake. Hence if you believe it is reasonable to say that all issues that the PM deals with in some way have lives at stake then the obvious conclusion is that BoJo was not fit to be PM at all.
I'm not so sure, actually. He's about the only senior politician whose instincts would be to stand up against the authoritarian bullshit the "experts" were demanding. Certainly Sir Keir wouldn't have!
It took a while for him to have enough strength to resist them, but he did get there in the end.
He made some right calls.
But was it not leaked at the time, against the grain of popular public opinion, that Rishi was one of the ones pushing against further lockdown etc?
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
Depends on which modelling you are talking about and when, on how quickly the vaccines were expected to be deployed, and absolutely massive margins of error.
But you have half a point, I think it's true that the deaths could have been lower (maybe 50,000 lower?) if Boris hadn't screwed things up so badly over Xmas 2020. That was unforgivable, because by then we had so much more information and we also knew the vaccines were rapidly going to be coming to the rescue.
I don't criticise him and the government generally for the early mistakes, when there was so much uncertainty.
Is this line about "Yes I misled everyone, but I didn't know I was doing it" as new as it seems?
Admittedly I haven't been following every twist and turn, but I thought the line was "I didn't mislead anyone".
I think he did formally correct the record last May in a Commons statement after Grey reported. That's not to say he hasn't danced around that and rowed back at times since. But "yes, I misled... by mistake" isn't a wholly new thing.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
UK deaths with Covid on the death certificate: 220,437
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
£450bn, Richard. You won't be around to deal with the consequences of it though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I dunno. Calling a racist a racist twenty years ago, and finding that the fact that they were identified as a racist didn't stop them being racist, doesn't mean it's not right to say they're racist.
It's not the word racist that's a problem. It's the word institutional.
And it's the institution that needs sorting out. We've had twenty years or more of the 'just a few rotten apples' nonsense.
I'm not putting up a few rotten apples as a counter argument.
What I'm arguing is that you need a story that will create change, that will change the culture away from covering up for your colleagues to doing what's right by the public.
I don't think that the label, "institutionally " helps with that process.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
Arent most police forces, in most countries, under a wide variety of management styles and cultures, having similar issues with corruption, defending their own and bias against minorities and/or the weaker groups in society?
Which suggests to me it is indeed very difficult and it is partly down to the nature of the job which creates an adverserial us vs them scenario and puts officers in danger, causing them to overrate the importance and value of their most aggressive colleagues.
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
That is OUTRAGEOUS.
Signed: A. Dinosaur.
Are you actually an Dinosauria? I had you down as more of a Ichthyopterygia
Is this line about "Yes I misled everyone, but I didn't know I was doing it" as new as it seems?
Admittedly I haven't been following every twist and turn, but I thought the line was "I didn't mislead anyone".
I think that was abandoned quickly since he apologised for events. He's trying to walk that back as he's still saying the fine was not fair, but if he outright says he didn't mislead he's calling himself a liar for apologising.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
Well, if the infection fatality rate were 1% that would be 670,000. I wonder what the infection fatality rate would have been if the crazy idea of 80% of the population getting infected in a couple of months had materialised. Pre-vaccination, of course. What do you imagine the level of available healthcare would have been?
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
Anyway, I look forward tomorrow to @SeaShantyIrish2 comparing Johnson's ordeal to the legendary, unflinching dignity of Ben Franklin before the Cockpit.
Mahoosive queue at immigration at Frankfurt. EU folk going through in seconds. Thank you Boris Johnson and your shitty Brexit. Frankly this pisses me off a lot more than him eating a cake.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
I'd be surprised myself if there was a sanction, but one that didn't meet the ten sitting days minimum. This is simply based on the precedents on suspension and the seriousness with which misleading the House is taken.
I'm also not in the least surprised Sunak is taking the line he is. I think he'd be delighted to see Johnson go, and it would be nuts to use political capital on saving him.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is how many would have died without a lockdown, and how bad that would have been.
Thank God it didn't happen, but the downside is that the lunatic fringe can pretend that only the same number would have died.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
If they'd given Johnson half a dozen fines, as was probably warranted, it would have made it a lot harder for him to survive as PM, and I presume the police really didn't want to be seen as responsible for defenestrating a PM.
I'm not sure that's true, since the multiple fines would all have been for the same thing. The defence/bluster of "I didn't think I was doing anything wrong" isn't really hurt by having done the same thing on multiple occasions.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
It does make it more likely it was knowingly as many more opportunity to understand things
No, that doesn't follow. The first time anyone actually thought that was a breach of the rules was when police issued the FPN.
Yes, but they should have understood and the more events they held the more they should have checked and understood the rules and guidance. Do something as a one off and you might mess up. Do it over and over and you should have checked properly, and thus determined your first check was wrong.
If you checked once, why would other checks come up with a different result? Your assumptions aren't going to change.
Because guidance changes and also they were constantly pumping out messages to the public on what the rules were. It is even a case of double checking, they were bombarded with covid rules messaging and should over time realised 'oh right, that relates to the thing I'm doing'.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Plus fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
UK deaths with Covid on the death certificate: 220,437
It's important to put the initial estimates (250k, FWIW, under a slowing the spread senario, more like 500k under do nothing, IIRC) in context. They were for what was known at the time about the initial variant. Later variants were much more infectious, which would lead to more infections and more deaths before herd immunity.
The purpose was to ascertain to what extent Covid was a serious problem and how viable simply 'flattening the curve' would be as a policy. They correctly identified the answers as (i) very serious and (ii) not viable. Given the information available at the time, an order of magnitude level estimate is about the best that could be expected anyway.
But, although rubbished as alarmist at the time, they certainly don't now look like overestimates. They did stop us replicating Northern Italy before we got serious about restrictions.
(Some important limitations - they were based non-airborne assumptions, I think and they did not make any assumptions about vaccine effectiveness or time to development, not that I think that mattered on the timescales assessed).
Mahoosive queue at immigration at Frankfurt. EU folk going through in seconds. Thank you Boris Johnson and your shitty Brexit. Frankly this pisses me off a lot more than him eating a cake.
Yep. I have had that experience a few times recently.
But surely, you should be delighted that you have a black passport and are able to see all those wonderful benefits of Brexit that are all so apparent.
Mahoosive queue at immigration at Frankfurt. EU folk going through in seconds. Thank you Boris Johnson and your shitty Brexit. Frankly this pisses me off a lot more than him eating a cake.
Thankfully that won't be a problem for much longer.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Plus fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Johnson admits he misled Commons, but ‘in good faith’
Does he even know what that means ?
It honestly is eerily close to the Yes Prime Minister situation in that he is claiming not to have known the truth for sure but it didn't prevent him giving a categorical answer anyway. He's just claiming as he admitted to not being sure that his earlier thst same statement straight denial is covered.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is how many would have died without a lockdown, and how bad that would have been.
Thank God it didn't happen, but the downside is that the lunatic fringe can pretend that only the same number would have died.
Do you think the only way, say, vulnerable people would not go out of their houses is if they were mandated not to by the government?
Frankly, you didn't distinguish yourself on PB during lockdown so I'm not 100% sure we should set any store in what you post afterwards.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
Actual deaths versus the lockdown costs is the wrong comparison.
It's lockdown costs (health, MH, economic costs) versus avoided deaths and avoided economic damage that needs to be considered. Of course, the counterfactual is hard to form and open to different estimates, but that's the only meaningful comparison. Even with a satisfactory counterfactual it depends on the values put on different things.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
I fear you are making the schoolboy error of assuming that the other damage (which you rate at more than 150K deaths' worth!) was the result of the lockdowns. Of course, that's far from the case. The idea that everyday life and the economy were just going to trundle on as normal while the morgues overflowed and the NHS collapsed is, how shall I put this kindly, not convincing.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Plus fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
And the fridges, by the sound of it.
So apart from the people, the organisation, the buildings, the fridges - the Met is fine?
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
Actual deaths versus the lockdown costs is the wrong comparison.
It's lockdown costs (health, MH, economic costs) versus avoided deaths and avoided economic damage that needs to be considered. Of course, the counterfactual is hard to form and open to different estimates, but that's the only meaningful comparison. Even with a satisfactory counterfactual it depends on the values put on different things.
That is absolutely what needs to be considered. Health, MH, economic costs. Exactly right. We are still seeing the first two of those play out.
Oh and there's democracy, liberty, government overstretch, precedence. Even had we lost 500,000 explicit dead during the pandemic with zero health, MH or economic costs and still the cost to our democracy would outweigh that 100x.
The speed with which (the government connived to make) people want ever more restrictive measures is truly one of the most horrifying phenomena of this century.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
Mahoosive queue at immigration at Frankfurt. EU folk going through in seconds. Thank you Boris Johnson and your shitty Brexit. Frankly this pisses me off a lot more than him eating a cake.
Yep. I have had that experience a few times recently.
But surely, you should be delighted that you have a black passport and are able to see all those wonderful benefits of Brexit that are all so apparent.
...in fact I have looked all over the place to find one of these Benefits of Brexit (BoBs), but it is nothing less than a search in vain. I even looked under my sofa (which is where most things that you can't find end up), but, alas (as a one-time less than honest PM might have said) - it was to no avail.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
But that may be EXACTLY what the next pandemic requires.
Try this. There is a new, highly contagious and utterly malign disease that leaves adults feeling poorly, but has a very high likelihood of causing children to either die or being left horribly blighted for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Medical Officer says we need an indefinite lockdown until we break its hold.
But you have put laws in place saying that we can never have an indefinite lockdown. We are then having to rely on the courts upholding the notion that one Parliament is not able to bind its successors...
Elderly tories would probably be delighted with a disease that killed off the noisy brats that interrupt their peaceful snoozes.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Ah, yes, the "number of deaths officially attributed to Covid is the only metric that matters" fallacy.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
If you prefer, I could have used the 167,000 figure, which is the current best estimate of the excess deaths.
And we were told that if we did nothing there would be, what, 200,000 deaths IIRC?
We have had about 200,000 deaths despite lockdowns and other NPIs, and then therapies and vaccines being developed at incredible pace. Those vaccines have saved roughly 200,000 lives in the UK alone. The intitial estimates were for the Wuhan strain, Delta was much worse, then later Omicron which is extremely transmissible, about as transmissible as any virus ever. If you are implying that the NPIs did nothing you are almost certainly wrong. We got absolutely clobbered in the first wave, but overall Britain has done relatively well, and better than many comparable countries in the end.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
I fear you are making the schoolboy error of assuming that the other damage (which you rate at more than 150K deaths' worth!) was the result of the lockdowns. Of course, that's far from the case. The idea that everyday life and the economy were just going to trundle on as normal while the morgues overflowed and the NHS collapsed is, how shall I put this kindly, not convincing.
You are ignoring the democratic angle, Richard. As everyone agrees, people would have locked themselves down. It is what the government did that is horrific.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
It's what he calls Boris, usually using the shopping trolley emoji for his own amusement.
One of the few people in the country (along with Corbyn) that might just about qualify for a rare prize known as The Even Bigger Twat Than Boris Award.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
It's what he calls Boris, usually using the shopping trolley emoji for his own amusement.
One of the few people in the country (along with Corbyn) that might just about qualify for a rare prize known as The Even Bigger Twat Than Boris Award.
I thing Peak Twat is somewhere between Piers Corbyn and Piers Morgan.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
But that may be EXACTLY what the next pandemic requires.
Try this. There is a new, highly contagious and utterly malign disease that leaves adults feeling poorly, but has a very high likelihood of causing children to either die or being left horribly blighted for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Medical Officer says we need an indefinite lockdown until we break its hold.
But you have put laws in place saying that we can never have an indefinite lockdown. We are then having to rely on the courts upholding the notion that one Parliament is not able to bind its successors...
You can lay out the evidence in front of your citizens and encourage them to voluntarily make the right choice to reduce social contact in order to reduce disease transmission. You don't need to put the force of law behind it.
Plus, if you spent the intervening period installing air filters into buildings you'd reduce disease transmission by a large factor without the public having to change behaviour at all.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is how many would have died without a lockdown, and how bad that would have been.
Thank God it didn't happen, but the downside is that the lunatic fringe can pretend that only the same number would have died.
I do hope you aren't conflating "without a lockdown" with "people acting as if there weren't a virus".
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is how many would have died without a lockdown, and how bad that would have been.
Thank God it didn't happen, but the downside is that the lunatic fringe can pretend that only the same number would have died.
I do hope you aren't conflating "without a lockdown" with "people acting as if there weren't a virus".
@Chris had a terrible PB lockdown. Calling the end of the world regularly throughout. You can't blame people for being scared and trying to pass it off as academic rigour but for Chris it was pretty obvious although he tried to style it out.
I hope Boris stays and his father gets a knighthood and his wife is made a Dame. I think it outrageous that a simple dismissal is all that's required to absolve the Party of the damage they together with Johnson have done to this country and its future. If they think Johnson is enough of a sacrificial lamb they should be forced to think again.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
Aren't you and others forgetting the need to avoid overwhelming the hospitals?
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
150,000 deaths was very bad. But absolutely not as bad as the damage that lockdowns did to the country in almost every single respect save for some deaths at the time.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
Aren't you and others forgetting the need to avoid overwhelming the hospitals?
Yes and no. We all saw pictures of Italy and thought - fuck. But look at the nightingale hospitals. Barely used. Plus look at the hospitals over the past 12 months (and for the previous 12 years). They are always "close to collapse".
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
Not keen on the modern uniforms either.
Bring back proper helmets. And shirts and ties. And shiny buttons.
Enough with 'change' and 'culture'. Just sack the bad cops and make sure the ones you recruit in their place are subject to normal, decent vetting procedures, as they are in most outfits.
It's not that difficult.
No, you do also need to change the culture. Not easy, of course. It requires highly effective, charismatic leadership, and a hell of a lot of hard work.
Yes, apart from the people and the organisation, the Met is fine.
Not keen on the modern uniforms either.
Bring back proper helmets. And shirts and ties. And shiny buttons.
That will right the ship.
So apart from the people, the organisation, the buildings, the fridges and the uniforms - the Met is fine?
Comments
Does he even know what that means ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C60Ib0eb24
He can always stand in a recall by election, even if the party did not back him, which it would. Ultimately the electorate would decide who is their MP, so any MP in such a situation cannot whine about being kicked out.
O/T but one for @JosiasJessop - another council makes withj the chainsaws, as discussed here passim.
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1638152749375266817
When folk constantly tell fibs, it’s really difficult to know when they’re telling the truth. I imagine it’s even a challenge for themselves.
Unfortunately, a fallacy believed by a majority at the crucial time.
It's not that difficult.
Do you think if Johnson had been somewhat apologetic for his behaviour and acknowledged those sacrifices it would have been accepted by they public?
Johnson's defence seems to blame everyone but himself and attempt to detract
I have no idea if it will work, but I increasingly think he will receive a sanction of some form but not enough for a recall petition
No matter I am relieved that Sunak is rising above the fray with a free vote
Also I see the dinosaurs are alive in the ERG , but again Sunak will proceed with the WF as he takes advantage of the new improved relationship with EU
Try this. There is a new, highly contagious and utterly malign disease that leaves adults feeling poorly, but has a very high likelihood of causing children to either die or being left horribly blighted for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Medical Officer says we need an indefinite lockdown until we break its hold.
But you have put laws in place saying that we can never have an indefinite lockdown. We are then having to rely on the courts upholding the notion that one Parliament is not able to bind its successors...
But it should have been sunsetted much earlier and guidance would then have been sufficient, and penalties never needed to be so high.
Admittedly I haven't been following every twist and turn, but I thought the line was "I didn't mislead anyone".
Signed: A. Dinosaur.
But was it not leaked at the time, against the grain of popular public opinion, that
Rishi was one of the ones pushing against further lockdown etc?
In good faith.
I thought it quite a good name for a cult.
In Good Faith.
But you have half a point, I think it's true that the deaths could have been lower (maybe 50,000 lower?) if Boris hadn't screwed things up so badly over Xmas 2020. That was unforgivable, because by then we had so much more information and we also knew the vaccines were rapidly going to be coming to the rescue.
I don't criticise him and the government generally for the early mistakes, when there was so much uncertainty.
As of last Thursday.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
Which suggests to me it is indeed very difficult and it is partly down to the nature of the job which creates an adverserial us vs them scenario and puts officers in danger, causing them to overrate the importance and value of their most aggressive colleagues.
Parliament is a court in two senses at least; it is part of the totality of the Royal Court, and also it has an unchallengeable jurisdiction.
It is your view Richard that I have no doubt will come to be seen as curious in the history books.
I'm also not in the least surprised Sunak is taking the line he is. I think he'd be delighted to see Johnson go, and it would be nuts to use political capital on saving him.
The question is how many would have died without a lockdown, and how bad that would have been.
Thank God it didn't happen, but the downside is that the lunatic fringe can pretend that only the same number would have died.
The purpose was to ascertain to what extent Covid was a serious problem and how viable simply 'flattening the curve' would be as a policy. They correctly identified the answers as (i) very serious and (ii) not viable. Given the information available at the time, an order of magnitude level estimate is about the best that could be expected anyway.
But, although rubbished as alarmist at the time, they certainly don't now look like overestimates. They did stop us replicating Northern Italy before we got serious about restrictions.
(Some important limitations - they were based non-airborne assumptions, I think and they did not make any assumptions about vaccine effectiveness or time to development, not that I think that mattered on the timescales assessed).
But surely, you should be delighted that you have a black passport and are able to see all those wonderful benefits of Brexit that are all so apparent.
It might be, on the most grievous charge.
Frankly, you didn't distinguish yourself on PB during lockdown so I'm not 100% sure we should set any store in what you post afterwards.
It's lockdown costs (health, MH, economic costs) versus avoided deaths and avoided economic damage that needs to be considered. Of course, the counterfactual is hard to form and open to different estimates, but that's the only meaningful comparison. Even with a satisfactory counterfactual it depends on the values put on different things.
Oh and there's democracy, liberty, government overstretch, precedence. Even had we lost 500,000 explicit dead during the pandemic with zero health, MH or economic costs and still the cost to our democracy would outweigh that 100x.
The speed with which (the government connived to make) people want ever more restrictive measures is truly one of the most horrifying phenomena of this century.
Plus, if you spent the intervening period installing air filters into buildings you'd reduce disease transmission by a large factor without the public having to change behaviour at all.
Bring back proper helmets. And shirts and ties. And shiny buttons.
That will right the ship.
I'll go out and come back in again.