At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.
You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
Watson was quite clear at the time, that he was acting from party political motives - anything to get the Tories. He has never apologised, and even tried to carry on the claims after it was quite clear that it was a shambles.
On Bercow - House of Lords Appointments Commission rejected Bercow's nomination. Is OGH saying that the PM should have overruled them?
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
Generally speaking, it seems undesirable that the government of the day should be making these decisions at all. That's what we have an independent Appointments Commission for. A thankless task, I expect, but they're presumably paid for it.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.
I don't know if anyone's told you this mind-blowing fact yet, but politics _is_ partisan...
Out of interest, apart from posting on here, have you ever done anything for the party you so blindly support? Have you been out on the doorstep with your ‘Tory never wrong attitude’ or stood for election?
In the words of Evelyn Waugh, I drink for the College
Si in fact your only interest in politics is to protect your privileged position from attack regardless of whether you deserve that position. You don’t really give a stuff about anything else or for that matter anybody else and unlike many from similar backgrounds see no responsibility to use the position to help the greater good.
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
That's just silly. I'm not a fan of remote operations but if they cannot go back to regular procedures they should keep the remote ones. Theres no point adopting yet new procedures.
Isn't the guidance continue WFH if you are able to do so?
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
Having rules and regulations that fit everybody's social interactions was never going to happen. Either they would be relative simple, and be inappropriate to the diversity and complexity of private life, or they would run to thousands of pages, and nobody would ever read them, much less follow them. Or they would be somewhere in between, and fall between both stools.
"Use your common sense" became Johnson's guidance in the wake of backing Cumming's breaking quarantine.
Having supported Cumming's actions it became impossible to say much else. The Cumming's affair has altered the guidance, Johnson had better cross his fingers and hope the infection rates haven't started rising in a week's time.
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?
Indeed. It is why populist government always leads to bad government and eventually the electorate wake up and demand proper leadership. Thatcher was not afraid of doing what she believed right , even if unpopular, and the same in the main with Blair. What we have now is a PM who is a hopeless incompetent, and the only unpopular thing he will do is hang on to Cummings because he is so weak he doesn't know what he will do without him.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
As I recall, you were in favour of the government ordering the arrest of an opposition MP. On the grounds that he had obtained leaked government documents.
Which event, interestingly, led to the downfall of the Speaker at the time.
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
I'm afraid I feel the same. I suspect it applies to millions. There is something silly about the whole thing now. They mouth the words but the words carry no weight or meaning. They know it. We know it. They know that we know it.
And forgetting about the practical impact - which is potentially grim - it is very sad. Uncomfortable too. For them and also for us. When you go and watch somebody speak, or perform, you naturally root for them. Nobody wants them to lose the room.
Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.
I would be surprised if arrogant, rule-benders consumed by petty jealousies have not previously been appointed to the House of Lords. Maybe they were donors to the Conservative party, though, so it was all OK.
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?
Mr. Observer, I imagine it's to reduce accountability and questioning.
I think that is probably the explanation. On every occasion we have witnessed Johnson being questioned either at PMQs or press conferences he is waffly, unable to think on his feet and clearly not on top of the detail. We are going to see lots of innovative ways of him avoiding scrutiny over the next few years.
That's just silly. I'm not a fan of remote operations but if they cannot go back to regular procedures they should keep the remote ones. Theres no point adopting yet new procedures.
Isn't the guidance continue WFH if you are able to do so?
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
Such and apples and orange situation. This is about policing in a Democrat city, in a Democrat state. It has nothing to do with Trump as opposed to the way foreign policy is tied to the President, hence why Nixon intervened.
So if Trump went to talk with some peaceful protesters (for what reason? he doesn't disagree with them) Antifa would stop looting Louis Vuitton? This is ridiculous.
Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.
Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.
If you have any historical perspective, as I am sure you do, you will know that there have been far worse people who have been given peerages than John Bercow, many of them have descendants that now cling on to said peerages by the hereditary principle. Mike is correct, this is petty and un-Conservative. It is a Trumpian style revenge and nothing less. It is pathetic.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.
Another paper on T Cell responses to the viral proteins:
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘‘megapools,’’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in $70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in $40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross- reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
Thank goodness.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.
A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
It stops scrutiny of the government. Hope that helps.
Yep - that's what it looks like. We will see a lot more of this kind of thing over the coming months and years as they do anything to ensure the government can avoid accountability.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
Maybe it's because there are only a limited number of people susceptible to having a serious reaction to the virus and most of those have already had it. It would be a good thing if that is the case because it would mean that we won't have any serious further waves/peaks.
Header (which I had to click through to from Vanilla) absolutely spot on.
Speakers, in the modern era, get peerages. Bercow did a huge amount for parliamentary democracy, as I am probably not the first to point out, a concept that the people denying him the peerage supposedly promote.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
You are not an offender, David.
OK, take "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
It (supposedly) is a condition whereby a "lib" is SO enraged by Donald Trump being POTUS - just that very fact - that he or she loses all ability to discuss anything to do with Trump rationally. It is used to rebut or downplay criticism of Trump.
There - you can use it now and get into my Bad Books.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
I would say there is considerable evidence that Derangement Syndrome does exist.
For a definite example - the cult-like hatred for the Clintons on the American Right. Complete with an armada of utterly insane conspiracy theories.
The problem that it causes in political discourse, is the irregular verb problem -
I am objective and right in my judgements You are partisan He/She is deranged and evil
So it just shortens the journey to the endpoint of political debate -
"Your politician smells" "No, your politician smells twice as bad" etc. etc.
The appeal to tradition here is irrelevant. It is utterly unprecedented that the likes of Leakey and Lisvane would openly accuse the Speaker of bullying, so nothing that used to happen is a guide to what should happen now. This doesn't make the top twenty of reasons to dislike Johnson.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.
'The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic.'
You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?
The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.
Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?
The bullying allegations should be sufficient to merit at least a pause in the process. If they're found to be groundless or exaggerated then there's no reason why a peerage couldn't be awarded later - and I do think that in general, it's a good thing for former Speakers to be appointed to the Lords.
However, that should be a general rule and not a guarantee. Having overseen the expenses scandal and having almost been forced out in consequence of it, Michael Martin should not have received a peerage either. To deny two Speakers in a row would be unfortunate but these things have to be considered case-by-case.
Header (which I had to click through to from Vanilla) absolutely spot on.
Speakers, in the modern era, get peerages. Bercow did a huge amount for parliamentary democracy, as I am probably not the first to point out, a concept that the people denying him the peerage supposedly promote.
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
You are not an offender, David.
OK, take "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
It (supposedly) is a condition whereby a "lib" is SO enraged by Donald Trump being POTUS - just that very fact - that he or she loses all ability to discuss anything to do with Trump rationally. It is used to rebut or downplay criticism of Trump.
There - you can use it now and get into my Bad Books.
I think I'll pass (I am sure I annoy you quite enough already :-))
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.
'The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic.'
You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?
The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.
Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?
Governments govern for the country not just ‘their side’ yes the election gives them the right to implement certain policies but their overall obligation is to govern in the national interest.
@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
Thank goodness.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.
Because Johnson is a weak leader, and weak leaders are often too dependent on one individual. You really would have to be "Bluest blue" (not really a compliment) to not notice that. Either that or completely myopic. You are the very reflection of a Corbynista. Proud to be blinkered eh?! lol
It is remarkable that a Leaver government that put so much emphasis on "Taking Back Control" should simultaneously be so little in control and so much out of control.
“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.
R is not related to the number of cases. (As Mark Drakeford also seems not to understand). If you don't change your behaviour for three weeks the R won't change, but if it is less than 1, the number of cases will. You could go from R = 0.5 to R = 0.9 by allowing some things to open, but the cases will still fall overall (as people recover). This is the tightrope that all countries coming out of lockdown and indeed Sweden, have to walk. In Sweden's case their informal lockdown (self behaviour, not state closure) seems to have left them with an R much closer to 1, and thus only a very slow decline in cases (and deaths) than places with a lockdown.
@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
Thank goodness.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.
Ponder your language with your interlocutors over the time you have been on PB. Vigorous, passionate, incisive. But also, perhaps, opinionated, aggressive, bullying?
I have absolutely no idea of the charges' validity against Bercow. Just that bullying allegations are just that, allegations.
@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
Thank goodness.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.
Oh, but I didn't see you keen to see the back of Cummings? Populist Brexity bullies are ok in Little England then? Why am I surprised.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
I would say there is considerable evidence that Derangement Syndrome does exist.
For a definite example - the cult-like hatred for the Clintons on the American Right. Complete with an armada of utterly insane conspiracy theories.
The problem that it causes in political discourse, is the irregular verb problem -
I am objective and right in my judgements You are partisan He/She is deranged and evil
So it just shortens the journey to the endpoint of political debate -
"Your politician smells" "No, your politician smells twice as bad" etc. etc.
Like many terms it is useful if used with precision - or at least an attempt at precision - but becomes sterile and offensive when bandied about mindlessly.
And yes, I know, there are plenty of other examples - "racist" for one - and yes, I know there is the "irregular verb problem" you mention. Cognitive bias. Partisanship. The impossibility of objectivity in human beings. Bla bla.
So all you can do is try not to abuse language in this way yourself and call it out when you see others (iyo) doing so.
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.
So at low rates of infection R number is not the best indicator and raw data about new infections is? I had guessed the answer but needed confirmation. So are we now obsessed by R?
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.
You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.
Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.
Another paper on T Cell responses to the viral proteins:
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘‘megapools,’’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in $70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in $40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross- reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.
That could be very helpful indeed. It depends if it provides some direct immunity, or if it gives the immune system a running start when infected (from my uneducated reading of it - may be completely off base).
To my eye there is considerable overreach by OGH in the header - is there any evidence at all that BJ has actually done what OGH is stating?
AIUI it is the HoL Appointments Panel that stopped it - and that is a body so achingly balanced that it even has a Lib Dem on it. If Boris wanted to shaft Bercow, it is not even clear that he has had the opportunity.
For me, it is unconscionable that Bercow gets a peerage whilst the credible allegations of bullying against him stand, and he abused his own personal position to prevent an independent inveestigation.
This current is just a whirlwind that he sowed, and is reaping. It may be just for now, but he is suffering the consequences of his own actions.
Polling people on what they saw in the news last week is not the same as asking them what they actually care about.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that if the media class want to talk about their pet story, to the exclusion of almost everything else, for a whole week then people are going to notice that story.
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
Generally speaking, it seems undesirable that the government of the day should be making these decisions at all. That's what we have an independent Appointments Commission for. A thankless task, I expect, but they're presumably paid for it.
Take it a step further and make them select rather than just vet the nominees.
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
1 - R changes are based on a few days in the past when we measure them (I believe). It gives more a prediction of new cases in about 5 days time. 2 - A rise in R would indicate a slowing of the decline rather than a rise, as long as it stays below 1.
So a rise from 0.5 to 0.9, say, would still see a decline in new cases. A rise to 1 would see a plateau - about five days later.
Comments
On Bercow - House of Lords Appointments Commission rejected Bercow's nomination. Is OGH saying that the PM should have overruled them?
On the bullying allegations - those who reject them are saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leakey is not telling the truth.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.
Having supported Cumming's actions it became impossible to say much else. The Cumming's affair has altered the guidance, Johnson had better cross his fingers and hope the infection rates haven't started rising in a week's time.
My apologies for the confusion
Surely the govt is just following his advice?
Which event, interestingly, led to the downfall of the Speaker at the time.
And forgetting about the practical impact - which is potentially grim - it is very sad. Uncomfortable too. For them and also for us. When you go and watch somebody speak, or perform, you naturally root for them. Nobody wants them to lose the room.
I think that is probably the explanation. On every occasion we have witnessed Johnson being questioned either at PMQs or press conferences he is waffly, unable to think on his feet and clearly not on top of the detail. We are going to see lots of innovative ways of him avoiding scrutiny over the next few years.
& the hybrid system was working well.
So if Trump went to talk with some peaceful protesters (for what reason? he doesn't disagree with them) Antifa would stop looting Louis Vuitton? This is ridiculous.
Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf
Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘‘megapools,’’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in $70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in $40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross- reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
Speakers, in the modern era, get peerages. Bercow did a huge amount for parliamentary democracy, as I am probably not the first to point out, a concept that the people denying him the peerage supposedly promote.
Small minded tossers, frankly.
OK, take "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
It (supposedly) is a condition whereby a "lib" is SO enraged by Donald Trump being POTUS - just that very fact - that he or she loses all ability to discuss anything to do with Trump rationally. It is used to rebut or downplay criticism of Trump.
There - you can use it now and get into my Bad Books.
For a definite example - the cult-like hatred for the Clintons on the American Right. Complete with an armada of utterly insane conspiracy theories.
The problem that it causes in political discourse, is the irregular verb problem -
I am objective and right in my judgements
You are partisan
He/She is deranged and evil
So it just shortens the journey to the endpoint of political debate -
"Your politician smells"
"No, your politician smells twice as bad"
etc. etc.
You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?
The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.
Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?
It doesn't work.
The bullying allegations should be sufficient to merit at least a pause in the process. If they're found to be groundless or exaggerated then there's no reason why a peerage couldn't be awarded later - and I do think that in general, it's a good thing for former Speakers to be appointed to the Lords.
However, that should be a general rule and not a guarantee. Having overseen the expenses scandal and having almost been forced out in consequence of it, Michael Martin should not have received a peerage either. To deny two Speakers in a row would be unfortunate but these things have to be considered case-by-case.
That is the considered scientific assessment
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.
Something Boris may come to regret.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267127192330346500
“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”
I have absolutely no idea of the charges' validity against Bercow. Just that bullying allegations are just that, allegations.
And yes, I know, there are plenty of other examples - "racist" for one - and yes, I know there is the "irregular verb problem" you mention. Cognitive bias. Partisanship. The impossibility of objectivity in human beings. Bla bla.
So all you can do is try not to abuse language in this way yourself and call it out when you see others (iyo) doing so.
Nobody did more to disrespect the Speakership than Bercow himself.
It depends if it provides some direct immunity, or if it gives the immune system a running start when infected (from my uneducated reading of it - may be completely off base).
To my eye there is considerable overreach by OGH in the header - is there any evidence at all that BJ has actually done what OGH is stating?
AIUI it is the HoL Appointments Panel that stopped it - and that is a body so achingly balanced that it even has a Lib Dem on it. If Boris wanted to shaft Bercow, it is not even clear that he has had the opportunity.
For me, it is unconscionable that Bercow gets a peerage whilst the credible allegations of bullying against him stand, and he abused his own personal position to prevent an independent inveestigation.
This current is just a whirlwind that he sowed, and is reaping. It may be just for now, but he is suffering the consequences of his own actions.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that if the media class want to talk about their pet story, to the exclusion of almost everything else, for a whole week then people are going to notice that story.
2 - A rise in R would indicate a slowing of the decline rather than a rise, as long as it stays below 1.
So a rise from 0.5 to 0.9, say, would still see a decline in new cases. A rise to 1 would see a plateau - about five days later.