A 19 year old has been killed in Detroit after someone drove up in a SUV and started firing into the crowd
It is sickening and the US seem to be on the verge of a full civil war
America has been broken by kind the billionaire funded fake populist right wing politics that is now being practiced here. The US is the country the Right want us to emulate. Where they go we will follow, especially as we have been cut adrift from social democratic Europe.
The US is on the verge of a race civil war
This Country is nothing like the US nor will it be
The US is where it is because it has followed the policies - dismantling the welfare state, voter suppression, demonising immigrants and minorities, slashing protection at work, underfunding public education and other services and cutting taxes for the wealthy - that are now being followed here. It will have the same result here, it's just that the US is further down that road.
It has also gerrymandered the voting system. Haven't seen any evidence of that here, yet.
I thought we had, Mr Punter. But not quite so blatent.
The quality of the scientific advice has been extremely poor throughout. From ridiculously simplistic exponential models that created the illusion that herd immunity was not only necessary but inevitable, to failures to see the big picture in testing, to wildly swinging estimates of the likely death toll, to failing to identify that the transfer of sick patients to care homes was going to be a public health disaster, its depressing. A PM who apparently does not read the scientific papers and clearly does not have the capacity to ask critical questions about them really does not help. This should be Cummings job but I fear he has been somewhat distracted.
The science was erroneous, which gives the government a free pass. OK...?
So how do we feel about the government now sidelining the medical science in favour of political expediency, as David's excellent header hints at?
Because the science having been a bit shit now gives them cover to go about rebuilding the economy?
This sounds rather like saying they wrecked the economy by following the scientific advice when it was poor, which gives them an excuse to risk destroying the economy altogether by ignoring the scientific evidence now.
The alternative take is to follow the scientific evidence now - and let them open up the economy in about June 2023, when they think the peak is over.
Masks are pointless in outdoor settings. I think that people would wear them to do the shopping, because a modest number already do of course, but if we're embarking down that route it needs to be demanded by regulation.
When Government first changed the advice to suggest that masks might be a good idea for indoor settings I wore one to Tesco. Given that it was (a) a bit of a faff (the wretched thing started falling to pieces when I tried to adjust it because it was getting uncomfortable) and (b) 95% of the rest of the customers couldn't be arsed to begin with, I did not repeat the experiment. And why would you, if hardly anybody else is bothering?
WTF is wrong with you
Why are you being rude?
I sympathise with her point of view.
Put yourself in a little bit of danger, put other people in a bigger bit a more danger, and insist that for you not to be an idiot, you need the government to *force* you to not to be an idiot.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have not worn a mask since this whole thing started, but then again, I have been good at self isolating so I do not interact with anyone. Going to the shops is all the interaction I get these days and almost no one is masked up
Why do you need to wait for everybody else to lead you?
What is that supposed to mean?
I see nobody during the day. I go to a deserted supermarket at 9pm at night. What use is a mask?
I was referring to the "almost noone is masked up" part . As far as the "deserted" part goes, isn't there a person at the checkout who you come face-to-face with, or is it all automated?
I use the automated checkouts. There are never more than two people on the tills and the numbers in the supermarket are kept low so that there are no queues.
The people I do see when I am out are generally not masked. Masks are enough of a rarity to look odd, not the norm.
"p.s. Last week I predicted that Dominic Cummings would end up being sacked. While that’s still possible, the odds are now firmly in his favour for the time being. My apologies for that error. I didn’t foresee that for once in his life, Boris Johnson would prove so loyal, at such a heavy price."
This is very strange behaviour from Mr Johnson. He really cannot be himself.
The quality of the scientific advice has been extremely poor throughout. From ridiculously simplistic exponential models that created the illusion that herd immunity was not only necessary but inevitable, to failures to see the big picture in testing, to wildly swinging estimates of the likely death toll, to failing to identify that the transfer of sick patients to care homes was going to be a public health disaster, its depressing. A PM who apparently does not read the scientific papers and clearly does not have the capacity to ask critical questions about them really does not help. This should be Cummings job but I fear he has been somewhat distracted.
The science was erroneous, which gives the government a free pass. OK...?
So how do we feel about the government now sidelining the medical science in favour of political expediency, as David's excellent header hints at?
I did not say that it gives the government a free pass. Quite the reverse. When the quality of advice is poor it is essential that critical and intelligent questions are asked of it. Boris, apparently, does not have the capacity to get into the detail. We could really do with Hunt being back involved. So far as expediency is concerned I agree and set that out in my other post. Its not good but there are no alternatives given the economic imperative. The weird obsession with Cummings is an error, focussing on trivia rather than a £60bn deficit in a single month, but the conclusion is the same. We muddle on without the right safeguards or systems or testing because we must.
I have always considered Cummings' escapades to be a sideshow. It is a sideshow not without potential implications, particularly if a second wave develops shortly.
I get the impression you are trying to pick an argument but we are in agreement once again. Cummings was indeed a sideshow but it undermined the capacity of the government to give credible advice at an important time and that is not without consequence.
"Cummings" has certainly undermined the ability of the government to get the public to behave as they are told.
But who is to blame for that? I suggest all of: - Cummings himself - Johnson for not sacking him and closing the matter down - Those in the media who decided to give the matter top billing for the best part of a week
Normally the only casualties of a media feeding frenzy are its direct targets. Not this time.
Very good header. Yes it's a mess. No plan. No communication of the thinking to the extent there is some. We are relaxing lockdown with the virus not squashed and no serious TTI in place. And by "we" I mean the public since anything Johnson tells us to do has no credibility. He has lost all authority on this having chosen to praise the rule-breaking of his Chief Adviser rather than criticize it. So it's hit and hope, I'm afraid, and with the added handicap of a compromised PM. Things could hardly be worse but get ready for them getting much worse. What can we do to turn it around? I really don't know. There must be a case for Starmer getting more involved in the decision making and perhaps taking over from Johnson as the main person on the comms - at least people might then be more likely to listen to instructions - but unfortunately our tribal "ya boo sucks" way of doing politics probably precludes this.
Tribality has little to do with this dream of the government with a big majority deciding not to go 'you know, the LoTO is better than us, he should take over'.
That's just a ridiculous fantasy not a suggestion grounded in any reality. The government we have has a responsibility to step up, improve where it needs to, and if people want to make a case for a unity government that's possible (though I cannot see why labour would think it a good idea) but for all tribal behaviour is pretty bad in this country and I'd love it for them all to work together better, it's not tribal behaviour for the LoTO to not be included in formal decision making or communications. Certainly his position means he should be involved in discussion and he has a very important role at holding the government to account but since I doubt even Starmer woukd suggest what you have for him it may not be tribal to not do it
It is a ridiculous fantasy. It's not how things work. But the important point is there is a problem with Johnson's lack of authority - and competence frankly - and it matters. It matters a lot. What can be done about this? I don't know. Probably nothing. He's the PM. He won a landslide majority just a few short months ago. I guess we're stuck with him. Be in little doubt, however, when we do the final reckoning on why we ended up with one of the very worst Covid-19 outcomes in the developed world, that one of the biggest single factors will be because we had in Boris Johnson a politician at the helm who lacked the diligence, integrity and focus required for the task at hand.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
It's almost as if we considered ourselves capable of looking after ourselves and not needing to be bound to a bloc.
I never mentioned Brexit, but I presume I hit a nerve.
Our trade policy is looking decidedly iffy, and in turn the overall economic prospects for this country over the next decade.
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
France is already reopening cafes, hotels and restaurants from Monday. Germany, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already done so, the UK is not reopening them until July.
So in my view the timeframe of reopening is correct
Don't mention NZ. You'll get HYUFD telling you that you can't make comparisons between the UK and NZ!
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
It's almost as if we considered ourselves capable of looking after ourselves and not needing to be bound to a bloc.
I never mentioned Brexit, but I presume I hit a nerve.
Our trade policy is looking decidedly iffy, and in turn the overall economic prospects for this country over the next decade.
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
I don't think it's iffy whatsoever. Look at other successful independent nations like Japan.
Japan as an island is essentially as close geographically to China as Britain is to the EU. But does Japan as a result tie itself in hock to its larger neighbour? Or does it look after itself?
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
France is already reopening cafes, hotels and restaurants from Monday. Germany, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already done so, the UK is not reopening them until July.
So in my view the timeframe of reopening is correct
Don't mention NZ. You'll get HYUFD telling you that you can't make comparisons between the UK and NZ!
Moldova? We could be Moldova-on-Sea. All we have to do is spend money we do not have and allow tax-dodging corporates to hover up what is left and siphon it off to the Caymans, so we have started down the Moldovan path. All we need now is to isolate ourselves from our biggest markets and make sure our industries cannot compete.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
'Things can only get better' could be the theme song for the current government. Although they might get considerably worse first.
However bad it gets in 2024 if the Tories lose I cannot see a 1997 style landslide loss, when Blair took over as leader Labour immediately went almost 20% ahead in the polls.
The latest poll still puts the Tories 6% ahead of Starmer's Labour
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
We have elected a f*ck-wit, just as many of us feared. The problem was that the choice was a disinterested marxist activist followed by an even bigger bunch of f*ck-wits.
I never envisioned that Boris could be so bereft of talent as to apparently be afraid to do the job.
I really do wonder if the only reason he wanted the job was for more money and cheap digs in London and the countryside....
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
It's almost as if we considered ourselves capable of looking after ourselves and not needing to be bound to a bloc.
I never mentioned Brexit, but I presume I hit a nerve.
Our trade policy is looking decidedly iffy, and in turn the overall economic prospects for this country over the next decade.
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
I don't think it's iffy whatsoever. Look at other successful independent nations like Japan.
Japan as an island is essentially as close geographically to China as Britain is to the EU. But does Japan as a result tie itself in hock to its larger neighbour? Or does it look after itself?
Again, you are missing the point. I am not talking about Japan.
I am talking about Britain, in the here and now, and our economic prospects over the next decade.
These prospects currently look very poor, given our trading relationships, in a world increasingly dividing into economic blocs.
Good header. On the party political aspect, which is frankly of minor importance at the moment, I think that to make further progress Labour needs some airtime, which it will only get when we aren't all talking about Covid-19. At the moment, the average public view is that the government is a bit of a mess but it's all we've got, while the opposition may be worth considering but is largely invisible. So you get low confidence ratings for the government but a modest lead in votes. I wouldn't be too celebratory if I were a Conservative - this really is a long game.
One thing I wonder about is whether we will in due course see some floor-crossing to Labour. But that too will await a change in the overall mood.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
No, I am not surprised.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Good header. On the party political aspect, which is frankly of minor importance at the moment, I think that to make further progress Labour needs some airtime, which it will only get when we aren't all talking about Covid-19. At the moment, the average public view is that the government is a bit of a mess but it's all we've got, while the opposition may be worth considering but is largely invisible. So you get low confidence ratings for the government but a modest lead in votes. I wouldn't be too celebratory if I were a Conservative - this really is a long game.
One thing I wonder about is whether we will in due course see some floor-crossing to Labour. But that too will await a change in the overall mood.
People like me who would not have given Labour the time of day under Corbyn are now prepared to give Starmer a chance. He has impressed so far - though his team less so. The Shadow Education Secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, has been largely invisible on the issue of schools reopening.
I have to hope that the current government succeeds in dealing with the virus because the consequences for our health and economy are so dire if they do not. So I hope they do well from now on in. But that does not mean that I will reward them with my votes in future, not least because there are other issues that need dealing with - the end of the Brexit transition, a US trade deal etc etc.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
Very visibly arresting 16-year old schoolchildren and carting them off in handcuffs does not strike me as playing “softly softly”. But perhaps I’m just a Western liberal softie.
On risk: there's a well-known human tendency to think of things in a binary fashion. Things are A or B. Risky or not risky. We are safe or we are not safe.
Those saying that the public are mis-assessing the risk are usually right. Unfortunately, they're also mis-assessing the risk.
We keep hearing again and again: "If you're under [40/50/60, delete as applicable to the person saying it] and healthy and not fat [and female, but that's usually omitted], your chances of dying from this are miniscule, so we can just get on with it if we're in that category. If you're not, sucks to be you, I guess, but that's how it goes [to be fair, that last bit is also usually omitted."
It then mutates to amend "...your chances of dying from this..." into "...the effects on you..." which is a very different beast indeed.
Your chances of becoming very sick from this in those categories are not much lower than those in other categories. Remember that "mild" simply means "not hospitalised." I've known people with "mild" cases who were effectively bedridden for three or four weeks. On its own, that's a pretty unpleasant effect.
Your chances of developing ARDS are still significant. Your chances of needing hospitalisation are still significant. Even of needing ICU. The difference is that the outcome of hospitalisation and even ICU tends to be far better.
Imagine saying, "Yeah, I had this. No real effect on me. Well, I was in intensive care for a week and in hospital for over a fortnight and my family were praying for me, but that's no real effect, right?" It would be ludicrous.
So a real assessment of risk would include that. As well as the possibility that if enough people took the option of personally relaxing their alertness, there wouldn't be hospital beds available if you did need it.
Anyone saying "as I'm under 40... 50... 60... I'm safe from this" is incurring as much error as anyone who is certain that covid-19 is an automatic death sentence. It seems an unwelcome fact to some, though.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
Given that the British took Hong Kong through violent aggression in the first place it's a bit rich to get salty about China taking it back.
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
We have elected a f*ck-wit, just as many of us feared. The problem was that the choice was a disinterested marxist activist followed by an even bigger bunch of f*ck-wits.
I never envisioned that Boris could be so bereft of talent as to apparently be afraid to do the job.
I really do wonder if the only reason he wanted the job was for more money and cheap digs in London and the countryside....
It's more that our government structures are not fit for purpose. The government isn't capable of running the country, the reason s structural, and neither would Starmer be, for the same reason. Partly it's choice - Brits want to get on with their lives with as little Government interference as possible. Partly it's the result of years of I'll thought out tinkering. Devolution is a disaster. Who thought we had devolved the response to a pandemic and national crisis? The Remainers have it wrong. Europe isn't primarily the issue, and the EU is at least as badly governed as we are. We should have asked to become part of Germany.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
No, I am not surprised.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
Aside from the fact that we have as a PM someone whose knowledge largely revolves around events a couple of millennia distant, the government’s performance forces one to conclude that, for most students, the Oxford PPE course must be exceedingly light on the economics. And not much better on the philosophy.
I cracked one open in the exam hall as soon as they said 'pens down' in my last Final.
Amateur. There was a guy in our final Maths Tripos exam who'd brought vodka in lieu of water into the exam. He had a three hour head start on everyone else.
Masks are pointless in outdoor settings. I think that people would wear them to do the shopping, because a modest number already do of course, but if we're embarking down that route it needs to be demanded by regulation.
When Government first changed the advice to suggest that masks might be a good idea for indoor settings I wore one to Tesco. Given that it was (a) a bit of a faff (the wretched thing started falling to pieces when I tried to adjust it because it was getting uncomfortable) and (b) 95% of the rest of the customers couldn't be arsed to begin with, I did not repeat the experiment. And why would you, if hardly anybody else is bothering?
WTF is wrong with you
Why are you being rude?
I sympathise with her point of view.
Put yourself in a little bit of danger, put other people in a bigger bit a more danger, and insist that for you not to be an idiot, you need the government to *force* you to not to be an idiot.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have not worn a mask since this whole thing started, but then again, I have been good at self isolating so I do not interact with anyone. Going to the shops is all the interaction I get these days and almost no one is masked up
Why do you need to wait for everybody else to lead you?
What is that supposed to mean?
I see nobody during the day. I go to a deserted supermarket at 9pm at night. What use is a mask?
I was referring to the "almost noone is masked up" part . As far as the "deserted" part goes, isn't there a person at the checkout who you come face-to-face with, or is it all automated?
I use the automated checkouts. There are never more than two people on the tills and the numbers in the supermarket are kept low so that there are no queues.
The people I do see when I am out are generally not masked. Masks are enough of a rarity to look odd, not the norm.
Fair enough, if you're coming close to literally no humans then there's nobody the mask will help.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
No, I am not surprised.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
Aside from the fact that we have as a PM someone whose knowledge largely revolves around events a couple of millennia distant, the government’s performance forces one to conclude that, for most students, the Oxford PPE course must be exceedingly light on the economics. And not much better on the philosophy.
The dirty secret of PPE is that the vast majority of undergraduates drop the 'E' after their first year, mainly because it involves numbers, and numbers are hard...
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
No, I am not surprised.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
Aside from the fact that we have as a PM someone whose knowledge largely revolves around events a couple of millennia distant, the government’s performance forces one to conclude that, for most students, the Oxford PPE course must be exceedingly light on the economics. And not much better on the philosophy.
The dirty secret of PPE is that the vast majority of undergraduates drop the 'E' after their first year, mainly because it involves numbers, and numbers are hard...
I believe George Osborne dropped it altogether and switched to History.
Though he still ended up Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I believe Rishi Sunak stuck it out with the economics though and is also now Chancellor
The economy is another one where we've got our mental quirks. That there is a good option and a bad option and we have to find the good one.
In pandemics, the recommended economic solution marches with the public health solution: lockdown and support the businesses and people who cannot continue as normal. It incurs horrifying costs to the public purse, but it preserves the economic state as much as possible. Ideally, you'd suspend all activity that leads to infection, incur no deaths at all, economically plunge down steeply - and, when released, as the same people and the same businesses are still intact, the same economic status as before would resume and you'd leap back up the far side of a very steep but brief V. At one heck of a price to state funds - but that's a one-off hit.
The ideal case is impossible. You're going to incur deaths, some businesses are still going to roll up thanks to the disruption, not all activity can be suspended. In reality, it'll be a U or even a W shape.
If you don't lock down to some degree, and especially if you don't support people and businesses, you get more deaths. And more businesses foundering. Because people ain't stupid and, as pointed out, on risk, we don't just react. We overreact. You get a very similar steep fall in activity, but it's accompanied by far more deaths and more collapsing businesses. The inevitable frictions of setting up new businesses and sweeping away the fragments of the old ones slows down any recovery, and business optimism is also far more badly hit. You get an L shaped recession, where you bottom out for a long time. The public purse takes less of an immediate hit, but its income is badly hammered for a long time to come. The economy is hurt and "scarred."
So - you're going to have a nasty economic situation whichever you choose. There is no "good" outcome, just assessing the "less bad" one. The US is apparently trying the latter; we're (so far) going for the former. I hold no candle for the current Government (as my posts on Cummings have emphasised), but in this, I think they're making the right call. Albeit that there are flaws involved, especially if they don't give further support to the hospitality sector.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
Bellicosity won't help but I do think the UK should use the leverage it has. It's a balancing act because if you go to the most drastic end and cut off all relations, you remove all your leverage. So more trade and more travel should be the overall goal, but it's worth trading some of it to discourage crossing the more defensible lines.
On protecting freedom in HK the visa thing is a nice soft power play, and I think financial-system sanctions are also worthwhile if the UK can get other countries on board with them.
On risk: there's a well-known human tendency to think of things in a binary fashion. Things are A or B. Risky or not risky. We are safe or we are not safe.
Those saying that the public are mis-assessing the risk are usually right. Unfortunately, they're also mis-assessing the risk.
We keep hearing again and again: "If you're under [40/50/60, delete as applicable to the person saying it] and healthy and not fat [and female, but that's usually omitted], your chances of dying from this are miniscule, so we can just get on with it if we're in that category. If you're not, sucks to be you, I guess, but that's how it goes [to be fair, that last bit is also usually omitted."
It then mutates to amend "...your chances of dying from this..." into "...the effects on you..." which is a very different beast indeed.
Your chances of becoming very sick from this in those categories are not much lower than those in other categories. Remember that "mild" simply means "not hospitalised." I've known people with "mild" cases who were effectively bedridden for three or four weeks. On its own, that's a pretty unpleasant effect.
Your chances of developing ARDS are still significant. Your chances of needing hospitalisation are still significant. Even of needing ICU. The difference is that the outcome of hospitalisation and even ICU tends to be far better.
Imagine saying, "Yeah, I had this. No real effect on me. Well, I was in intensive care for a week and in hospital for over a fortnight and my family were praying for me, but that's no real effect, right?" It would be ludicrous.
So a real assessment of risk would include that. As well as the possibility that if enough people took the option of personally relaxing their alertness, there wouldn't be hospital beds available if you did need it.
Anyone saying "as I'm under 40... 50... 60... I'm safe from this" is incurring as much error as anyone who is certain that covid-19 is an automatic death sentence. It seems an unwelcome fact to some, though.
Yes, that's a good description, and the habit of thinking in binary terms is a fundamental problem in human thinking that affects all kinds of attitudes - it's a basic driver for tribalism for a start ("Are you Tory or Labour?"). I'm not sure that many people have thought it through to that extent - rather, they feel uneasy about hospitalisation - but it comes to the same.
The problem about "let everyone decide for themselves", as advocated by some here, is that everyone lacks the basis for informed decisions, and everyone's actions affect everyone else. I'd rather we collectively (i.e. via our elected government, really basing itself on the current scienitific evidence) adopted an approach which might be different to my own judgment but was nonetheless pretty consistently enforced, instead of having everyone's health depending on the lottery of what individuals who we run into happen to have decided. So I'd be perfectly prepared to follow Boris's advice, if only I didn't feel it was driven by the political needs of the moment with only a cursory glance at the science. As it is, I'll broadly self-isolate and work from home for the duration.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I agree, but I do note that our relationship with the three leading economic blocs are in a very odd place all of a sudden.
Heading for “WTO” with the EU. The beginning of what could be a trade war with China. Relying on a US which is famed for its one-sided trade agreements...can’t see Trump prioritising it, nor Joe “Irish” Biden...
Are you surprised?
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
No, I am not surprised.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
Aside from the fact that we have as a PM someone whose knowledge largely revolves around events a couple of millennia distant, the government’s performance forces one to conclude that, for most students, the Oxford PPE course must be exceedingly light on the economics. And not much better on the philosophy.
The dirty secret of PPE is that the vast majority of undergraduates drop the 'E' after their first year, mainly because it involves numbers, and numbers are hard...
I believe George Osborne dropped it altogether and switched to History.
Though he still ended up Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I believe Rishi Sunak stuck it out with the economics though and is also now Chancellor
Kenneth Clarke happily acknowledged that his A Level Economics course was the only formal training he ever had for the the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer.
A 19 year old has been killed in Detroit after someone drove up in a SUV and started firing into the crowd
It is sickening and the US seem to be on the verge of a full civil war
America has been broken by kind the billionaire funded fake populist right wing politics that is now being practiced here. The US is the country the Right want us to emulate. Where they go we will follow, especially as we have been cut adrift from social democratic Europe.
The US is on the verge of a race civil war
This Country is nothing like the US nor will it be
I watched the coverage of the CNN crew being arrested by "faceless" police who were standing around looking like Imperial Startroopers in all their amour. It looked like a battlefield, not like a town centre. My only thought was that thankfully I do not live there.
Increasingly, it seems, the best thing about America is the 3,000 miles of ocean between them and us...
Indeed. But America is a huge and diverse country, we should try not to read too much into events, awful as they are, in one city, or cities. There are many peaceful places.
Another four years of Trump though is an awful prospect.
It is not just this - the periodic school shootings, the recurrent victimisation of non-white people, the idiotic religious right and their evangelical fervour, their useless "health" system, their overly aggressive cops and justice system, the self-righteous indignation of fat blokes with assault rifles "lobbying" their MPs...
I am certain there are good bits, there seems to be plenty of dangerous, bone-headed bits too.
I was head-hunted for a job in the US once for a specialist software company. I am glad I had the wit to turn it down.
Depends where you go, Massachusetts, San Francisco, Washington State, DC and Vermont for example are probably more left liberal than the UK is.
The US is a vast country.
I have just finished reading Tim Moore's account of driving a model T Ford from coast to coast through Trump's America. It gives a very good picture of the variable culture of the continent as well as the huge distances involved.
On risk: there's a well-known human tendency to think of things in a binary fashion. Things are A or B. Risky or not risky. We are safe or we are not safe.
Those saying that the public are mis-assessing the risk are usually right. Unfortunately, they're also mis-assessing the risk.
We keep hearing again and again: "If you're under [40/50/60, delete as applicable to the person saying it] and healthy and not fat [and female, but that's usually omitted], your chances of dying from this are miniscule, so we can just get on with it if we're in that category. If you're not, sucks to be you, I guess, but that's how it goes [to be fair, that last bit is also usually omitted."
It then mutates to amend "...your chances of dying from this..." into "...the effects on you..." which is a very different beast indeed.
Your chances of becoming very sick from this in those categories are not much lower than those in other categories. Remember that "mild" simply means "not hospitalised." I've known people with "mild" cases who were effectively bedridden for three or four weeks. On its own, that's a pretty unpleasant effect.
Your chances of developing ARDS are still significant. Your chances of needing hospitalisation are still significant. Even of needing ICU. The difference is that the outcome of hospitalisation and even ICU tends to be far better.
Imagine saying, "Yeah, I had this. No real effect on me. Well, I was in intensive care for a week and in hospital for over a fortnight and my family were praying for me, but that's no real effect, right?" It would be ludicrous.
So a real assessment of risk would include that. As well as the possibility that if enough people took the option of personally relaxing their alertness, there wouldn't be hospital beds available if you did need it.
Anyone saying "as I'm under 40... 50... 60... I'm safe from this" is incurring as much error as anyone who is certain that covid-19 is an automatic death sentence. It seems an unwelcome fact to some, though.
Yes, that's a good description, and the habit of thinking in binary terms is a fundamental problem in human thinking that affects all kinds of attitudes - it's a basic driver for tribalism for a start ("Are you Tory or Labour?"). I'm not sure that many people have thought it through to that extent - rather, they feel uneasy about hospitalisation - but it comes to the same.
The problem about "let everyone decide for themselves", as advocated by some here, is that everyone lacks the basis for informed decisions, and everyone's actions affect everyone else. I'd rather we collectively (i.e. via our elected government, really basing itself on the current scienitific evidence) adopted an approach which might be different to my own judgment but was nonetheless pretty consistently enforced, instead of having everyone's health depending on the lottery of what individuals who we run into happen to have decided. So I'd be perfectly prepared to follow Boris's advice, if only I didn't feel it was driven by the political needs of the moment with only a cursory glance at the science. As it is, I'll broadly self-isolate and work from home for the duration.
Moreover, the "let everybody decide for themselves" overlooks that they're not just deciding for themselves. They're deciding for everyone else, as well, and using the assessment that their own personal risk is low, therefore, so what?
Passing by the mis-assessment of personal risk, the limit of freedom is the freedom to impair others freedoms. I would have more respect for the stance if they agreed to the following additional elements:
1 - Should they infect anyone else, they are held responsible for the outcome to them (and to anyone they, in turn, infect). Illness taking them out for a while: charged with Actual Bodily Harm. Hospitalisation or especially intensive care: Grievous Bodily Harm. Death: Manslaughter by carelessness. (As long as they don't affect anyone else, this won't be a concern. Only if they cause harm to others by their actions, would it be a concern. And if they conclude that there is no way to avoid an unacceptable risk of harming others, why, they shouldn't do it in the first place)
2 - Should the NHS be overwhelmed by a second spike caused by people mis-assessing personal risk, they would agree not to be hospitalised and instead try to push on through at home. (As long as their assessment that they're all but certain to be unaffected by this is accurate, not a problem for them. If wrong - well, freedom always includes the freedom to take the consequences. Otherwise it's not a freedom at all)
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
With CV19? Why then did he return to work later? If there was any possibility of her being contagious that was irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
While I have a certain admiration for your masochistic tenacity, in terms of seats it was the worst result since 1906, which is 91 years.
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157) 1997 (165) 2001 (166) 2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
The government's current approach lacks a clear message. It favours prescriptive rules ('6 people') that sound arbitrary over principles people can understand and apply.
Surely we need the following:
1) Continue to socially distance with other households 2) Avoid confined spaces - outside is better 3) Do not gather in large groups or crowds - risk of 'super spreader events' 4) Wear masks in public 5) Protect vulnerable members of society by being more careful in general if you come into contact with them
The complete absence of a policy of mask wearing is particularly bizarre at this stage. I understood earlier on when PPE was at critical levels, but it is surely an 'easy win' in terms of reducing R if we can make that the norm.
Masks are pointless in outdoor settings. I think that people would wear them to do the shopping, because a modest number already do of course, but if we're embarking down that route it needs to be demanded by regulation.
When Government first changed the advice to suggest that masks might be a good idea for indoor settings I wore one to Tesco. Given that it was (a) a bit of a faff (the wretched thing started falling to pieces when I tried to adjust it because it was getting uncomfortable) and (b) 95% of the rest of the customers couldn't be arsed to begin with, I did not repeat the experiment. And why would you, if hardly anybody else is bothering?
The latest survey data that appeared on the slides at yesterday's briefing suggested that "29% of adults used a face covering when outside their home." A case of people telling pollsters what they think they want to hear (or will make them look good) if ever there was one. Where is this near-third of the population that's walking around in masks? It's patently bollocks.
I'd say it's, at most, one in ten and they tend to be disproportionately worn by older people with obvious health conditions.
That seems about right to me.
Based on my observations the distribution of mask wearers seems a lot more random, but one could easily understand if they were being worn disproportionately by the vulnerable - even though the scientific advice appears to be that they offer no meaningful protection to the wearer and, rather, may be of some limited use in reducing transmission by the already infected.
In short, to the extent people are wearing masks in non-clinical settings, they are probably nothing more than a security blanket for the frightened.
Interesting, because my local observation is the opposite. Almost all of the (relatively few) mask wearers have been younger people, up to young middle age, with older middle age and retired people not.
Must be some national variation on this. Very few mask-wearers round here. Those that do really stand out. I`d say that most that do are older people.
I saw someone yesterday driving while wearing one (on his own in the car).
Why does the UK appear to be the one country where people refuse or can't be bothered to wear a mask? As far as I can tell from photos you see everywhere else, including America, the majority are wearing masks.
Is it just another case of British exceptionalism? I have no idea but I sincerely hope it doesn't result in us zooming back over 1 again, our comparative performance is poor to begin with.
On risk: there's a well-known human tendency to think of things in a binary fashion. Things are A or B. Risky or not risky. We are safe or we are not safe.
Those saying that the public are mis-assessing the risk are usually right. Unfortunately, they're also mis-assessing the risk.
We keep hearing again and again: "If you're under [40/50/60, delete as applicable to the person saying it] and healthy and not fat [and female, but that's usually omitted], your chances of dying from this are miniscule, so we can just get on with it if we're in that category. If you're not, sucks to be you, I guess, but that's how it goes [to be fair, that last bit is also usually omitted."
It then mutates to amend "...your chances of dying from this..." into "...the effects on you..." which is a very different beast indeed.
Your chances of becoming very sick from this in those categories are not much lower than those in other categories. Remember that "mild" simply means "not hospitalised." I've known people with "mild" cases who were effectively bedridden for three or four weeks. On its own, that's a pretty unpleasant effect.
Your chances of developing ARDS are still significant. Your chances of needing hospitalisation are still significant. Even of needing ICU. The difference is that the outcome of hospitalisation and even ICU tends to be far better.
Imagine saying, "Yeah, I had this. No real effect on me. Well, I was in intensive care for a week and in hospital for over a fortnight and my family were praying for me, but that's no real effect, right?" It would be ludicrous.
So a real assessment of risk would include that. As well as the possibility that if enough people took the option of personally relaxing their alertness, there wouldn't be hospital beds available if you did need it.
Anyone saying "as I'm under 40... 50... 60... I'm safe from this" is incurring as much error as anyone who is certain that covid-19 is an automatic death sentence. It seems an unwelcome fact to some, though.
Yes, that's a good description, and the habit of thinking in binary terms is a fundamental problem in human thinking that affects all kinds of attitudes - it's a basic driver for tribalism for a start ("Are you Tory or Labour?"). I'm not sure that many people have thought it through to that extent - rather, they feel uneasy about hospitalisation - but it comes to the same.
The problem about "let everyone decide for themselves", as advocated by some here, is that everyone lacks the basis for informed decisions, and everyone's actions affect everyone else. I'd rather we collectively (i.e. via our elected government, really basing itself on the current scienitific evidence) adopted an approach which might be different to my own judgment but was nonetheless pretty consistently enforced, instead of having everyone's health depending on the lottery of what individuals who we run into happen to have decided. So I'd be perfectly prepared to follow Boris's advice, if only I didn't feel it was driven by the political needs of the moment with only a cursory glance at the science. As it is, I'll broadly self-isolate and work from home for the duration.
So you are using your judgement, despite the fact that you "lack the basis for [an] informed decision" to determine that the government's advice doesn't apply to you. Ok then.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
We have friends from New Zealand who lived in London from around 1996 until 2006 before they went home and started a family. A couple of years ago they all came over to show their kids rounds where they lived etc. When they returned to where they'd lived in London (Maida Vale area) they were shocked at how downhill the area had gone.
The government's current approach lacks a clear message. It favours prescriptive rules ('6 people') that sound arbitrary over principles people can understand and apply.
Surely we need the following:
1) Continue to socially distance with other households 2) Avoid confined spaces - outside is better 3) Do not gather in large groups or crowds - risk of 'super spreader events' 4) Wear masks in public 5) Protect vulnerable members of society by being more careful in general if you come into contact with them
The complete absence of a policy of mask wearing is particularly bizarre at this stage. I understood earlier on when PPE was at critical levels, but it is surely an 'easy win' in terms of reducing R if we can make that the norm.
Masks are pointless in outdoor settings. I think that people would wear them to do the shopping, because a modest number already do of course, but if we're embarking down that route it needs to be demanded by regulation.
When Government first changed the advice to suggest that masks might be a good idea for indoor settings I wore one to Tesco. Given that it was (a) a bit of a faff (the wretched thing started falling to pieces when I tried to adjust it because it was getting uncomfortable) and (b) 95% of the rest of the customers couldn't be arsed to begin with, I did not repeat the experiment. And why would you, if hardly anybody else is bothering?
The latest survey data that appeared on the slides at yesterday's briefing suggested that "29% of adults used a face covering when outside their home." A case of people telling pollsters what they think they want to hear (or will make them look good) if ever there was one. Where is this near-third of the population that's walking around in masks? It's patently bollocks.
I'd say it's, at most, one in ten and they tend to be disproportionately worn by older people with obvious health conditions.
That seems about right to me.
Based on my observations the distribution of mask wearers seems a lot more random, but one could easily understand if they were being worn disproportionately by the vulnerable - even though the scientific advice appears to be that they offer no meaningful protection to the wearer and, rather, may be of some limited use in reducing transmission by the already infected.
In short, to the extent people are wearing masks in non-clinical settings, they are probably nothing more than a security blanket for the frightened.
Interesting, because my local observation is the opposite. Almost all of the (relatively few) mask wearers have been younger people, up to young middle age, with older middle age and retired people not.
Last trip to Waitrose a good half of the people had masks including a lot of younger people, women in particular.
Last trip to Wilko we had our masks on and people looked at us as though we were about to pull a gun and rob the place.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
With CV19? Why then did he return to work later? If there was any possibility of her being contagious that was irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
While I have a certain admiration for your masochistic tenacity, in terms of seats it was the worst result since 1906, which is 91 years.
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157) 1997 (165) 2001 (166) 2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
Hasn't the size of the Commons increased significantly since 1906 though?
So you should properly be looking at the percentage of MPs not the absolute numbers
It shouldn’t be, we were told yesterday that Valencia is going to phase two on Monday. Nobody will open their restaurant inside tonight, groups of 15 will only start from Monday. But then there are four times the number of police officers out here and a respect for, if not love for them.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
Or he wanted very publically give everyone the impression he had to go somewhere urgently.
I feel it unwise to speculate as to the state of his mind.
A 19 year old has been killed in Detroit after someone drove up in a SUV and started firing into the crowd
It is sickening and the US seem to be on the verge of a full civil war
America has been broken by kind the billionaire funded fake populist right wing politics that is now being practiced here. The US is the country the Right want us to emulate. Where they go we will follow, especially as we have been cut adrift from social democratic Europe.
The US is on the verge of a race civil war
This Country is nothing like the US nor will it be
I watched the coverage of the CNN crew being arrested by "faceless" police who were standing around looking like Imperial Startroopers in all their amour. It looked like a battlefield, not like a town centre. My only thought was that thankfully I do not live there.
Increasingly, it seems, the best thing about America is the 3,000 miles of ocean between them and us...
Indeed. But America is a huge and diverse country, we should try not to read too much into events, awful as they are, in one city, or cities. There are many peaceful places.
Another four years of Trump though is an awful prospect.
It is not just this - the periodic school shootings, the recurrent victimisation of non-white people, the idiotic religious right and their evangelical fervour, their useless "health" system, their overly aggressive cops and justice system, the self-righteous indignation of fat blokes with assault rifles "lobbying" their MPs...
I am certain there are good bits, there seems to be plenty of dangerous, bone-headed bits too.
I was head-hunted for a job in the US once for a specialist software company. I am glad I had the wit to turn it down.
Depends where you go, Massachusetts, San Francisco, Washington State, DC and Vermont for example are probably more left liberal than the UK is.
The US is a vast country.
I have just finished reading Tim Moore's account of driving a model T Ford from coast to coast through Trump's America. It gives a very good picture of the variable culture of the continent as well as the huge distances involved.
In 1969 I drove with some friends from San Francisco to Philadelphia in an old Rambler. Took twelve days. I have never since underestimated the variety of the country and its culture.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
I tore my clothes off in a footballer type celebration. It was visceral and unforgettable. It's why I still have a soft spot for Tony despite everything. He gave me that.
I was also on a trading floor at the time and made a killing on the spreads against the consensus of colleagues that Thatcher's country would not do Labour landslides. I recall you could buy the majority in the mid 2 digits. That was nice too.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
While I have a certain admiration for your masochistic tenacity, in terms of seats it was the worst result since 1906, which is 91 years.
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157) 1997 (165) 2001 (166) 2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
Hasn't the size of the Commons increased significantly since 1906 though?
So you should properly be looking at the percentage of MPs not the absolute numbers
No, it’s reduced, due to the independence of Ireland and the abolition of university seats. In 1906 it was 670 MPs.
1918 was the largest house elected - 707 - but 73 MPs from Ireland refused to take their seats and met in Dublin, declaring the First Dail instead.
Comments
The people I do see when I am out are generally not masked. Masks are enough of a rarity to look odd, not the norm.
"p.s. Last week I predicted that Dominic Cummings would end up being sacked. While that’s still possible, the odds are now firmly in his favour for the time being. My apologies for that error. I didn’t foresee that for once in his life, Boris Johnson would prove so loyal, at such a heavy price."
This is very strange behaviour from Mr Johnson. He really cannot be himself.
But who is to blame for that? I suggest all of:
- Cummings himself
- Johnson for not sacking him and closing the matter down
- Those in the media who decided to give the matter top billing for the best part of a week
Normally the only casualties of a media feeding frenzy are its direct targets. Not this time.
Our trade policy is looking decidedly iffy, and in turn the overall economic prospects for this country over the next decade.
We are looking increasingly “Italian” in the quality of our governance, and the performance of our economy.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
Japan as an island is essentially as close geographically to China as Britain is to the EU. But does Japan as a result tie itself in hock to its larger neighbour? Or does it look after itself?
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
The latest poll still puts the Tories 6% ahead of Starmer's Labour
The government has been incoherent in its strategy. The assumptions of Brexit were that we would get a trade deal, the easiest one in history, apparently. We would also get a great one with the US. And we would become China’s best friend in Europe - see Osborne’s approach and Johnson’s decision on Huawei. Little thought appears to have been given about the inconsistencies of these positions nor, more importantly, about how to achieve the ends we wanted. We misread China.
If you are going to be a relatively small independent nation you need a very clear idea about your strategy, your plans and how to achieve them and effective competent leadership. We have not had any of this: just words, bluster, threats and lies.
I never envisioned that Boris could be so bereft of talent as to apparently be afraid to do the job.
I really do wonder if the only reason he wanted the job was for more money and cheap digs in London and the countryside....
I am not talking about Japan.
I am talking about Britain, in the here and now, and our economic prospects over the next decade.
These prospects currently look very poor, given our trading relationships, in a world increasingly dividing into economic blocs.
You'll only see me if you are watching the re-run of 1997 Election.
Guess the constituency...
'Taking precautions is logical and doesn't need enforcement.'
You may be right. I certainly hope so because imposing them is going to be damned near impossible now.
One thing I wonder about is whether we will in due course see some floor-crossing to Labour. But that too will await a change in the overall mood.
It really isn’t clear what our trade strategy is (hint - we don’t have one) and moreover, no-one really cares.
Brexit is a culture war, and so long as Boris is on top and the “Remoaners” are at heel, that’s all that matters; the economy can go to shit.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
I have to hope that the current government succeeds in dealing with the virus because the consequences for our health and economy are so dire if they do not. So I hope they do well from now on in. But that does not mean that I will reward them with my votes in future, not least because there are other issues that need dealing with - the end of the Brexit transition, a US trade deal etc etc.
Those saying that the public are mis-assessing the risk are usually right. Unfortunately, they're also mis-assessing the risk.
We keep hearing again and again: "If you're under [40/50/60, delete as applicable to the person saying it] and healthy and not fat [and female, but that's usually omitted], your chances of dying from this are miniscule, so we can just get on with it if we're in that category. If you're not, sucks to be you, I guess, but that's how it goes [to be fair, that last bit is also usually omitted."
It then mutates to amend "...your chances of dying from this..." into "...the effects on you..." which is a very different beast indeed.
Your chances of becoming very sick from this in those categories are not much lower than those in other categories. Remember that "mild" simply means "not hospitalised." I've known people with "mild" cases who were effectively bedridden for three or four weeks. On its own, that's a pretty unpleasant effect.
Your chances of developing ARDS are still significant. Your chances of needing hospitalisation are still significant. Even of needing ICU. The difference is that the outcome of hospitalisation and even ICU tends to be far better.
Imagine saying, "Yeah, I had this. No real effect on me. Well, I was in intensive care for a week and in hospital for over a fortnight and my family were praying for me, but that's no real effect, right?" It would be ludicrous.
So a real assessment of risk would include that. As well as the possibility that if enough people took the option of personally relaxing their alertness, there wouldn't be hospital beds available if you did need it.
Anyone saying "as I'm under 40... 50... 60... I'm safe from this" is incurring as much error as anyone who is certain that covid-19 is an automatic death sentence. It seems an unwelcome fact to some, though.
And not much better on the philosophy.
Labour majority of 11,700 in 1997, Wrexham won by Boris and the Tories last December
By that standard 2029 will be 24 years if they dont do it in 2024
Though he still ended up Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I believe Rishi Sunak stuck it out with the economics though and is also now Chancellor
https://twitter.com/iancanwrite/status/1266275115240579072
In pandemics, the recommended economic solution marches with the public health solution: lockdown and support the businesses and people who cannot continue as normal. It incurs horrifying costs to the public purse, but it preserves the economic state as much as possible. Ideally, you'd suspend all activity that leads to infection, incur no deaths at all, economically plunge down steeply - and, when released, as the same people and the same businesses are still intact, the same economic status as before would resume and you'd leap back up the far side of a very steep but brief V. At one heck of a price to state funds - but that's a one-off hit.
The ideal case is impossible. You're going to incur deaths, some businesses are still going to roll up thanks to the disruption, not all activity can be suspended. In reality, it'll be a U or even a W shape.
If you don't lock down to some degree, and especially if you don't support people and businesses, you get more deaths. And more businesses foundering. Because people ain't stupid and, as pointed out, on risk, we don't just react. We overreact. You get a very similar steep fall in activity, but it's accompanied by far more deaths and more collapsing businesses. The inevitable frictions of setting up new businesses and sweeping away the fragments of the old ones slows down any recovery, and business optimism is also far more badly hit. You get an L shaped recession, where you bottom out for a long time. The public purse takes less of an immediate hit, but its income is badly hammered for a long time to come. The economy is hurt and "scarred."
So - you're going to have a nasty economic situation whichever you choose. There is no "good" outcome, just assessing the "less bad" one. The US is apparently trying the latter; we're (so far) going for the former. I hold no candle for the current Government (as my posts on Cummings have emphasised), but in this, I think they're making the right call. Albeit that there are flaws involved, especially if they don't give further support to the hospitality sector.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/30/this-man-knows-hes-dying-as-surely-as-i-do-a-doctors-dispatches-from-intensive-care
On protecting freedom in HK the visa thing is a nice soft power play, and I think financial-system sanctions are also worthwhile if the UK can get other countries on board with them.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1266649971568316416
If the Tories hold on again then 2029 would be a Labour landslide if history repeated
The problem about "let everyone decide for themselves", as advocated by some here, is that everyone lacks the basis for informed decisions, and everyone's actions affect everyone else. I'd rather we collectively (i.e. via our elected government, really basing itself on the current scienitific evidence) adopted an approach which might be different to my own judgment but was nonetheless pretty consistently enforced, instead of having everyone's health depending on the lottery of what individuals who we run into happen to have decided. So I'd be perfectly prepared to follow Boris's advice, if only I didn't feel it was driven by the political needs of the moment with only a cursory glance at the science. As it is, I'll broadly self-isolate and work from home for the duration.
A new day has dawned, has it not?
I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
He made a pretty decent fist of it though.
Good luck with that one, Labour.
Passing by the mis-assessment of personal risk, the limit of freedom is the freedom to impair others freedoms.
I would have more respect for the stance if they agreed to the following additional elements:
1 - Should they infect anyone else, they are held responsible for the outcome to them (and to anyone they, in turn, infect). Illness taking them out for a while: charged with Actual Bodily Harm. Hospitalisation or especially intensive care: Grievous Bodily Harm. Death: Manslaughter by carelessness. (As long as they don't affect anyone else, this won't be a concern. Only if they cause harm to others by their actions, would it be a concern. And if they conclude that there is no way to avoid an unacceptable risk of harming others, why, they shouldn't do it in the first place)
2 - Should the NHS be overwhelmed by a second spike caused by people mis-assessing personal risk, they would agree not to be hospitalised and instead try to push on through at home. (As long as their assessment that they're all but certain to be unaffected by this is accurate, not a problem for them. If wrong - well, freedom always includes the freedom to take the consequences. Otherwise it's not a freedom at all)
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Just sayin'....
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157)
1997 (165)
2001 (166)
2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
I cant really see the point of a non edited rerun of GEs.
A 1 or 2 hour package would be watchable a 16 hr version is not for me.
far as I can tell from photos you see everywhere else, including America, the majority are wearing masks.
Is it just another case of British exceptionalism? I have no idea but I sincerely hope it doesn't result in us zooming back over 1 again, our comparative performance is poor to begin with.
Ah. Alles klar....
Last trip to Waitrose a good half of the people had masks including a lot of younger people, women in particular.
Last trip to Wilko we had our masks on and people looked at us as though we were about to pull a gun and rob the place.
Sad but true unfortunately
All you need to do, however, is say you are only there so you had a drive to test your eyesight and you’re laughing.
The Attorney General has said that’s perfectly reasonable behaviour.
So you should properly be looking at the percentage of MPs not the absolute numbers
I feel it unwise to speculate as to the state of his mind.
First Labour gain of the night from the Tories in 1997 on a swing of 10%
I was also on a trading floor at the time and made a killing on the spreads against the consensus of colleagues that Thatcher's country would not do Labour landslides. I recall you could buy the majority in the mid 2 digits. That was nice too.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
1918 was the largest house elected - 707 - but 73 MPs from Ireland refused to take their seats and met in Dublin, declaring the First Dail instead.