"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.
I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.
The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.
That is all very fine but is there any actual investigation going on and, if so, who is doing it? Because it is awfully slow, if so, and it really should not be. This is unfair both to Bercow and those making the allegations.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
Really? Straight to “remoaners”? You need to get over Brexit...
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
Really? Straight to “remoaners”? You need to get over Brexit...
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
As I said, is bullying in your view an automatic bar on ennoblement? It's a simple question but you've been wholly unable to come up with any coherent answer.
As for your comments about "Remoaners", give your head a wobble and get yourself 20 IQ points back. As if John Bercow is going to make any difference either way in the House of Lords. Honestly. Don't you blush to reread the drivel you wrote?
This Bercow row. I don't think *anyone* should be appointed to the House of Lords. I think the House of Lords should be abolished and replaced by an elected chamber - we are a democracy supposedly. "But what about cross benchers and experts" people say - a PR system using a top up list allows people with expertese to be elected off a list. And yes, an independent list could well get more votes than the party ones as independent councillors can take control of councils.
Personally I'm ok with an appointed chamber which is subordinate, to a degree, to an elected chamber but it needs to be tighter (and it is to some degree). Minimum level of regular attendance or else seat lost, less of it being a reward on retirement for mps, even more transparency on expert appointment and so on, it could work.
Peerage are not like gongs, they arent just a status reward they grant legislative authority. Either it's even more carefully appointed or you might as well abolish it elect, both of which would require consideration of how to change our processes to adapt to that
The situation in the US is incredibly serious. It is widespread anarchy & in locations far away from the usual places in the hood. And small handed orange man just keeps stoking it.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
I like the fantasy that former Lords from Days of Yore were paragons of virtue who (say) never screwed unwilling chambermaids or run up rack-rents squeezing every penny from the poor, etc.
Oh for the return of Victorian virtues..
That things were bad or worse before doesnt mean we need to accept something less than ideal now.
"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.
I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.
The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.
That is all very fine but is there any actual investigation going on and, if so, who is doing it? Because it is awfully slow, if so, and it really should not be. This is unfair both to Bercow and those making the allegations.
I wondered the same thing. While I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Bercow, that is beside the point. Everyone opposing his appointment seems quite content for his exclusion to happen in a manner utterly obscure. You can't introduce principles into public life in a partial and unprincipled way.
What it sounds like to me, is that the Appointments Committee found a technicality to block the appointment. They did so in order that they can point to the technicality in the time-old - "Nothing personal, old chap, rules d'you see?" manner.
- Has a government every over-ruled the Appointments Commission and put someone in the House of Lords? - Is over-ruling the commission recognised in the system as an option. i.e. rules saying specifically this is an option - What would over-ruling the commision be considered as? - argy-bargy in politics, or over throwing the effective mandate of the commision? Or what?
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
The situation in the US is incredibly serious. It is widespread anarchy & in locations far away from the usual places in the hood. And small handed orange man just keeps stoking it.
First he's hiding, now he's stoking it. No end to Trump's powers.
And the left busily preparing themselves to scream "King" once again if he took any measures against Antifa.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
I like the fantasy that former Lords from Days of Yore were paragons of virtue who (say) never screwed unwilling chambermaids or run up rack-rents squeezing every penny from the poor, etc.
Oh for the return of Victorian virtues..
That things were bad or worse before doesnt mean we need to accept something less than ideal now.
Yes. I believe that shooting ones political opponents dead, or running them through with a sword, is considered somewhat OTT.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
I like the fantasy that former Lords from Days of Yore were paragons of virtue who (say) never screwed unwilling chambermaids or run up rack-rents squeezing every penny from the poor, etc.
Oh for the return of Victorian virtues..
Previously Lords had to prove themselves, by extortion from the peasantry, or pillage overseas, or at least killing.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
The sustainable method is a mixture of test and trace, keeping clean (handwashing and masks) and avoiding a small number of superspreading activities. That's still burdensome, to be sure, but it's sustainable.
But all that works a lot better if the initial rate of infections is lower, and at the moment lockdown is the only way to actively cut the infection rate. If a country needs to lockdown, it's because it has failed to manage the softer controls adequately. But there's no point pretending that failure hasn't happened.
There's less virus out there in the UK now than in late March, but more than in most other countries. So it's more of a gamble for us to lockdown right now. We might get away with it, but it's a gamble. And it's a big gamble, because if it goes wrong, we're back to the choice of costly lockdown or piles of corpses.
And bluntly, it's a distinctively British gamble to cut corners, spoil the ship for a ha'pennyworth of tar (yes, I know the short term cost is higher than that, but the principle holds) and focus on the short term figures rather than the big picture.
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 am shielding with my daughter. My husband is staying at another house, on his own, a mile away. We agreed this so that he could bring me food etc and ensure my shielding. He has kept well away from people as far as possible, too.
Now according to the new laws, it would be a crime for me to have sex with my husband in my home when he visits me. And this from a government led by Boris Johnson! You can safely assume we will be following our instincts.
More seriously I am concerned that lockdown is being eased too soon. And so is my daughter, surprisingly. Desperate as she is to reopen her business, what she fears more is a partial reopening, the virus starting to spread again and a further lockdown. That would be the end for her and many in a similar position.
So we are remaining strict about lockdown and enjoying sitting in the sun, which is utterly glorious!
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
Absolutely ridiculous Mike. Conservatism isn't (or certainly shouldn't be) blindly following tradition - particularly not when it involves giving a peerage to a potential bully.
"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.
Even in bold that is not the case for Bercow.
He has to answer David Leakey and other bullying claims and let that be resolved first
How low can Johnson go , not just a lying cheating toerag but also a mean petty vindictive one as well. Big spoilt baby.
Malc, do you think the Speaker of the House of Commons should walk into a peerage at the end of it, just because?
The Yougov poll is quite interesting - main shift appears to be to the Greens rather than directly from Lab to Con.
As long time Labour supporter who only joined the party in January and voted RLB 1 Starmer 2 I would say that Starmer is doing realistically as well/ slightly better than expected.
Like HYUFD I am sticking to my assumption at least for now that the Tories have a solid 40%+ at least as long as Johnson is leader and Labour has a ceiling of 38-40% in opinion polls and at the next election.
The weakness of the Lib Dems is most interesting - they might be strongly bleeding votes to Starmer's Labour but will probably have to wait until next year's county council elections to offset that with a bounce at the expense of the Tories in the South.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
I'm massively in favour of certain relaxations. You may have seen my previous posts on the subject. "Lockdown is over," though is pointing to loads of idiots acting as though it's all over and in the past and they can do what they like. And that's the best way to screwing things back up.
And, if it runs riot again, of course there will be a second lockdown, no matter how much we all may hate the concept. No Government, especially one whose core vote demographic is amongst the older electors, can afford to let a virus like this run free. They'll not abandon the elderly any more than they'd abandon Brexiteers. Maybe they'll call it something different to save face.
And if the death toll starts mounting, yes, people will comply again. They'll focus their ire on those who relaxed it too quickly and too soon and swiftly forget that they themselves were calling for it.
I'm hoping really strongly that the R-number doesn't climb too rapidly. I'm stone-cold certain there are a number of things we can do in the relaxation way that would keep it below 1 (we're finding out more and more things like outdoor activities being comparatively far less risky, for example); it's always possible that people will keep their heads (by and large) and keep to the less risky stuff.
I bloody well hope so, anyway. I was just getting used to being able to do more stuff.
“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.”
Is there a next Scon leader market? I might have a modest bet on the resigner.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
Got a mirror, dear?
I've given a clear test that I would apply. You, on the other hand, have given waffly bullshit.
On that, Sunil, we agree. Dynamite the whole place and replace it with a house elected by proportional representation.
Getting rid of the HoL and free broadband are the only Brexit Party policies that aren't shit.
Was the former really a Brexit Party policy? In that case I'm now definitely in favour of offering Farage a peerage to a) fcuk with their heads and b) that there's no arsehole so arseholey that the British state won't stick Lord before their name.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
It was always going to be very very hard to maintain 100% distancing for anymore than about 8 weeks without it breaking down.
But that doesn't mean it's a binary choice between 100% rule following and not giving a ****. I'm limiting my contact as much as I can, but there might be some times when, well lets face it, we're only human.
If you can limit your contact to a high proportion, then that's still reducing the risk, even if not by 100%.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
Yes, I am OK with that. The rules are now being ignored anyway, at least by a substantial minority.
The Seven dwarves are sticking to the rules though. One of them is Grumpy.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
Yes, I am OK with that. The rules are now being ignored anyway, at least by a substantial minority.
The Seven dwarves are sticking to the rules though. One of them is Grumpy.
There's a difference between 'ignoring the rules' and 'no complying with the rules 100% of the time'.
As long as it's the second one, then thats probably as good as can be expected.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
"Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer." By definition if 'R' does increase it will comtinue for longer.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
"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.
I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.
The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.
That is all very fine but is there any actual investigation going on and, if so, who is doing it? Because it is awfully slow, if so, and it really should not be. This is unfair both to Bercow and those making the allegations.
Yes, but is the government causing that delay?
I genuinely have no idea. It is not at all clear who is doing the investigation. The Laura Cox Report came out in the autumn of 2018. More than enough time to complete the most thorough of investigations, not just into Bercow but others against whom allegations were made, including MPs, a point often forgotten.
From a professional perspective, it is utterly disgraceful that such an investigation should take so long.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
The problem is that we are dealing with the human instinct to socialise.
Solitary confinement - which this is, for some, in some part - has been proven to cause mental health problems. At the very least it can be incredibly stressful.
“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.”
Is there a next Scon leader market? I might have a modest bet on the resigner.
Don't think there is. Humiliatingly Ruth Davidson is actually shorter (20/1) for next FM than Carlaw (25/1)
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
On topic, pettiness and the pursuit of personal grievances has been one of the defining features of the Johnson premiership. He's obviously a deeply insecure man, but then I think that is obvious.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
Its clear and admirable, but do you have any expectation or confidence that this is how the PM would act?
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I like to think I would, but who knows. If Bercow were facing the same allegations, but had not had his (real or perceived) role in frustrating Brexit, would you be so keen on him being ennobled?
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
"Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer." By definition if 'R' does increase it will comtinue for longer.
‘R’ is going to increase. There’s no realistic way of preventing that. To think otherwise is just naive.
Government decisions are often dictated by one of two groups of people, the government itself and the people of the UK. Medical professionals like the Association of Directors of Public Health usually target their messaging at the government as if the people don't matter and would not understand. These doctors want to decide how the country is run, so it is time for them to try to show some appreciation of democracy and economics if they want to be listened to by everyone.
I guess the people of the UK learning that they know far less than the doctors will have useful long-term consequences, but it'll be painful in the short term.
Certainly doctors have had an extensive education. However man, as a species, is much older than the medical profession. Coronavirus has killed many thousands of people, but it has caused an existential shock to human society. This shock is a direct result of the measures that doctors have called for. We now need to rebuild society from the ground up. This will call for contributions and skills from everyone, not just doctors. I have thought this for a long time, not just since the pandemic started. The medical perspective is valuable, but not uniquely 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.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
This is ridiculous. It is verging on ridiculous that MPs should be required to vote in person, even in normal circumstances, when owing to illness, pregnancy, or other exceptional factors they should not be required to.
The idea they should be required to attend IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC beggars belief.
Proxy voting exists now right? So can’t ALL Labour MPs essentially assign the same proxy? Thus Keir Starmer walks through the lobby on behalf of all 202 Labour MPs?
That’s a good point. Allow everyone to nominate a party leader or whip as their proxy, then only a few dozen people need to actually walk through the lobbies.
It’s difficult to know what else they can do - they tried a phone app for voting a few weeks ago, but there were loads of complaints from MPs that it didn’t work properly.
Aggressive pairing and a limited legislative timetable would also assist. But no, JRM wants MPs to line up against a wall, just not in the sense some of his detractors might want...
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
Even when the lockdown is completely over there is no guarantee that people will return to how they were before.
If my friends and neighbours are in any way typical the over 60s will not be going to concerts / pubs / cinemas/ restaurants / sports events / theatres for the vey simple reason that it will be impossible to avoid the numpties who don't give a shit.
Most of the hospitality industry is going to have to figure out how to turn a profit without the grey pound until such times as there is a vaccine.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
"Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer." By definition if 'R' does increase it will comtinue for longer.
‘R’ is going to increase. There’s no realistic way of preventing that. To think otherwise is just naive.
Key point is to keep it below 1. The Gov't might be lucky if healthier people have an innate resistance (Though I'm not sure that's true) or if the spreading mechanism is highly skewed - that can mean a higher effective partial herd immunity effect at lower infection levels (Research suggests this may well be the case). It's clear the Gov't needs to have luck on its side. It might get lucky, it might not.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
Encourage “social distancing”, encourage “staying at home” as much as possible. Encourage hand-washing and public hygiene. Let people be sensible and to think for themselves.
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
I'm massively in favour of certain relaxations. You may have seen my previous posts on the subject. "Lockdown is over," though is pointing to loads of idiots acting as though it's all over and in the past and they can do what they like. And that's the best way to screwing things back up.
And, if it runs riot again, of course there will be a second lockdown, no matter how much we all may hate the concept. No Government, especially one whose core vote demographic is amongst the older electors, can afford to let a virus like this run free. They'll not abandon the elderly any more than they'd abandon Brexiteers. Maybe they'll call it something different to save face.
And if the death toll starts mounting, yes, people will comply again. They'll focus their ire on those who relaxed it too quickly and too soon and swiftly forget that they themselves were calling for it.
I'm hoping really strongly that the R-number doesn't climb too rapidly. I'm stone-cold certain there are a number of things we can do in the relaxation way that would keep it below 1 (we're finding out more and more things like outdoor activities being comparatively far less risky, for example); it's always possible that people will keep their heads (by and large) and keep to the less risky stuff.
I bloody well hope so, anyway. I was just getting used to being able to do more stuff.
My main fear is that we land in a situation where there are too many cases for effective contact tracing and isolation, and so we end up with a long-term pseudo-lockdown anyway. People like me, who can work from home and can avoid going out much, will continue to do so. Group events like conferences, festivals, sporting events, concerts, even university lectures will remain cancelled indefinitely. Activity will resume, but only reluctantly so, and any sign of outbreaks will cause panic in the affected areas.
If we're running at 8,000 infections per day, and if the R rate stays around 1, then we'd see about 240,000 infections in a month. Very roughly this is about 1-in-200 of the adult population being infected at any moment, which seems like an awful lot of people to trace. Of course, it still makes much more sense to quarantine the 1-in-200 rather than sort-of-quarantining everyone with a lockdown, but can the system actually achieve this?
This is where lockdown timing matters a lot. Would a further week of lockdown cut infections to 4,000 per day? Is halving the number of cases you need to contact-trace going to make a substantial difference to the difficulty of the task?
I feel like we're back in the situation of mid-March, where anyone with a pocket calculator and a bit of common sense would start asking these questions, but the government doesn't seem to want to tell us what it thinks the answers are, presumably because they can't agree amongst themselves.
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.
I can remember years ago, when discussing the merits of Britain becoming a republic, and the obvious questions around who would then become head of state, the writer Edward Pearce, saying: "Easy". The obvious answer to him was the Speaker of the House of Commons who would easily act the part. At the time I think the Speaker was Bernard Weatherill. Michael Martin and John Bercow have well and truly smashed that scenario between them!
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I like to think I would, but who knows. If Bercow were facing the same allegations, but had not had his (real or perceived) role in frustrating Brexit, would you be so keen on him being ennobled?
I've got a clear personal test for this, mentioned above:
1) does the person in question have a contribution to make worthy of the House of Lords? 2) does the person in question have a flaw that is disqualifying?
For me, the bullying allegations even if made out do not disqualify someone who otherwise has a substantial contribution to make. So I would admit both John Bercow and (should the circumstance ever arise) Priti Patel to the House of Lords regardless of how bullying allegations against them pan out. The allegations made are simply not serious enough to justify depriving the upper house of their undoubted experience.
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
The problem is that we are dealing with the human instinct to socialise.
Solitary confinement - which this is, for some, in some part - has been proven to cause mental health problems. At the very least it can be incredibly stressful.
Some people love isolation - they are very rare.
Thing is, it's not done out of preference. There's also the human instinct to stay alive. Death is also a major health problem (with apologies for sounding trite). And the deaths of loved ones is also incredibly stressful.
So's hospitalisation and intensive care.
As I say, I'm certain that there are possibilities for more socialisation without things going exponential. We've not got as much information on it as I'd like - many of those arguing the other side have taken refuge in straight denial or pointing towards irrelevancies.
The outside thing is very useful. And I'd suggest that pub gardens and outside cafes and restaurants with retention of social distancing should be higher on the agenda than reopening smaller shops.
I had hoped there might be reliable corroboration of earlier suggestions that young children couldn't act as carriers; unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
It's possible that mandating use of masks would help limit R to the point where 2 metres could be relaxed to 1.5 or even 1 metre as another prospect, but few people are doing it without it being mandated.
More resources being thrown into a fast, self-contained, reliable antigens test (the 20-minute thing) would be a bloody good idea as well - you could mandate that special relaxation for a controlled period in a controlled environment (which could be indoors) is allowed if everyone takes and passes that test before entering. This sort of thing could allow full family reunions, or even limited internal pub and restaurant use.
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I see in the Independent that actually he wasn't blocked because of the bullying allegations but because he wasn't Labour, so the Appointments Commission felt it wasn't appropriate for the Labour leader to nominate him. That seems utterly bizarre and a really bad precedent - why shouldn't party leaders be open-minded enough to nominate people who are not party loyalists?
The leaked comments also say that they was a lot of um'ing and ah'ing over Watson, but in his case it was the paedophile claims issue, while Murphy was seen as a "slam-dunk" for unspecified reasons presumed to relate to the handling of anti-semitism allegations.
To be fair, none of this seems to have Johnson's fingerprints on it - it's all the Commission. But their decision-making criteria seem mysterious and subjective, and the willingness of a member (presumably) to gossip anonymously about them makes it even worse.
"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.
Even in bold that is not the case for Bercow.
He has to answer David Leakey and other bullying claims and let that be resolved first
How low can Johnson go , not just a lying cheating toerag but also a mean petty vindictive one as well. Big spoilt baby.
Malc, do you think the Speaker of the House of Commons should walk into a peerage at the end of it, just because?
I would say blow the place up and get rid of the lot of them , a bunch of greedy no users supping at the trough, full of clowns and ne'er do wells and a few comic singers. It is no wonder the UK is going down the drain when these parasites still beg steal or borrow their baubles. A pox on all of them.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I like to think I would, but who knows. If Bercow were facing the same allegations, but had not had his (real or perceived) role in frustrating Brexit, would you be so keen on him being ennobled?
I've got a clear personal test for this, mentioned above:
1) does the person in question have a contribution to make worthy of the House of Lords? 2) does the person in question have a flaw that is disqualifying?
For me, the bullying allegations even if made out do not disqualify someone who otherwise has a substantial contribution to make. So I would admit both John Bercow and (should the circumstance ever arise) Priti Patel to the House of Lords regardless of how bullying allegations against them pan out. The allegations made are simply not serious enough to justify depriving the upper house of their undoubted experience.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
Be nice if she applied it to Scottish matters as well where shall we say she is a little bit bitter and one sided.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I like to think I would, but who knows. If Bercow were facing the same allegations, but had not had his (real or perceived) role in frustrating Brexit, would you be so keen on him being ennobled?
I've got a clear personal test for this, mentioned above:
1) does the person in question have a contribution to make worthy of the House of Lords? 2) does the person in question have a flaw that is disqualifying?
For me, the bullying allegations even if made out do not disqualify someone who otherwise has a substantial contribution to make. So I would admit both John Bercow and (should the circumstance ever arise) Priti Patel to the House of Lords regardless of how bullying allegations against them pan out. The allegations made are simply not serious enough to justify depriving the upper house of their undoubted experience.
What "undoubted experience" does Priti Patel have?
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown
Because they were several weeks ahead of us?
It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.
It doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It only matters if the virus likes it or not.
Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.
We’re not going to “cower in our homes indefinitely”. We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference. Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
“Certain restrictions and limitations”? Really? Is that how you would describe the destruction of livelihoods and the huge mental health burden?
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
What's your alternative "sustainable method?"
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
The problem is that we are dealing with the human instinct to socialise.
Solitary confinement - which this is, for some, in some part - has been proven to cause mental health problems. At the very least it can be incredibly stressful.
Some people love isolation - they are very rare.
Thing is, it's not done out of preference. There's also the human instinct to stay alive. Death is also a major health problem (with apologies for sounding trite). And the deaths of loved ones is also incredibly stressful.
So's hospitalisation and intensive care.
As I say, I'm certain that there are possibilities for more socialisation without things going exponential. We've not got as much information on it as I'd like - many of those arguing the other side have taken refuge in straight denial or pointing towards irrelevancies.
The outside thing is very useful. And I'd suggest that pub gardens and outside cafes and restaurants with retention of social distancing should be higher on the agenda than reopening smaller shops.
I had hoped there might be reliable corroboration of earlier suggestions that young children couldn't act as carriers; unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
It's possible that mandating use of masks would help limit R to the point where 2 metres could be relaxed to 1.5 or even 1 metre as another prospect, but few people are doing it without it being mandated.
More resources being thrown into a fast, self-contained, reliable antigens test (the 20-minute thing) would be a bloody good idea as well - you could mandate that special relaxation for a controlled period in a controlled environment (which could be indoors) is allowed if everyone takes and passes that test before entering. This sort of thing could allow full family reunions, or even limited internal pub and restaurant use.
Stuff like that.
I believe that the first non-essential commercial businesses to re-open are specifically those with a big open air component (garden centres etc) or very large indoor (car show rooms).
The children carrier issue is a current medical debate - lots of studies in various countries. Including the UK, where, of course, the schools remained partially open throughout.
My understanding is that the 20 minute, on the spot anti-gen test is being pushed forward as fast as possible, for a variety of reasons*. However, using it before it has finished a proper clinical trial would be foolish.
* I was told that apart from the obvious reasons to do with lab resources, time etc. that a significant factor was removing control of testing from certain systemic interests. Who regard the issue of lab vs field testing as protecting their empires in the lab running area.
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I see in the Independent that actually he wasn't blocked because of the bullying allegations but because he wasn't Labour, so the Appointments Commission felt it wasn't appropriate for the Labour leader to nominate him. That seems utterly bizarre and a really bad precedent - why shouldn't party leaders be open-minded enough to nominate people who are not party loyalists?
The leaked comments also say that they was a lot of um'ing and ah'ing over Watson, but in his case it was the paedophile claims issue, while Murphy was seen as a "slam-dunk" for unspecified reasons presumed to relate to the handling of anti-semitism allegations.
To be fair, none of this seems to have Johnson's fingerprints on it - it's all the Commission. But their decision-making criteria seem mysterious and subjective, and the willingness of a member (presumably) to gossip anonymously about them makes it even worse.
Yes whether Bercow gets a peerage or not, I couldnt care less about, but if we are going to have peerages decided by politicians, surely there is nothing wrong with them selecting someone outside their own party?
Anyone willing to argue to the contrary, because it seems a terrible rule to me?
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
I like to think I would, but who knows. If Bercow were facing the same allegations, but had not had his (real or perceived) role in frustrating Brexit, would you be so keen on him being ennobled?
I've got a clear personal test for this, mentioned above:
1) does the person in question have a contribution to make worthy of the House of Lords? 2) does the person in question have a flaw that is disqualifying?
For me, the bullying allegations even if made out do not disqualify someone who otherwise has a substantial contribution to make. So I would admit both John Bercow and (should the circumstance ever arise) Priti Patel to the House of Lords regardless of how bullying allegations against them pan out. The allegations made are simply not serious enough to justify depriving the upper house of their undoubted experience.
If you apply that consistently then fair enough. I think we differ as follows:
1) I wouldn't apply this criterion, as I think the House of Lords is a joke institution full of duffers anyway. I'd prefer to render this whole debate academic by having an elected upper house (and if John Bercow, Priti Patel, or anyone else got elected to it then best of luck to them).
2) Given that it is for now an appointed chamber, I would consider bullying of this sort to be a disqualifying flaw, and would apply that regardless of the potential appointee's politics.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
On the situation in the US, I'm seeing an increasing number of comments on social media blaming white nationalists and agents provocateur for the looting and destruction.
I don't know what the truth of that is. I've seen agents provocateur myself, so I know that it does happen, but even then they rely on more excitable elements of a crowd to join in. The white nationalists seem more likely to open fire on the crowds, as in Detroit, than to do something like use them as cover for looting to discredit the cause (seems a bit complex).
My main observation is that it's another example of the partisan divide becoming a truth divide. Everything bad must be the result of the other side. Everything from the other side must be bad. There is no room for considering reality where that makes life more complicated.
If we can't agree on the truth there's no hope for us. Meanwhile the Chinese look on and stand ready to take advantage.
At my Trust 3000 staff have had antibody testing since it was announced on Friday. They have suspended it for the remaining staff so that they can catch up in the Lab.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.
The Grauniad version:
John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.
The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.
So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?
Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?
I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.
Do you?
Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.
He had a duty of care to employees. So I'm holding him to a higher standard than any random bully. Why the rush to elevate him before the report?
Gordon Brown was just as much in an employment relationship with those on the receiving end of flying implements as John Bercow. So, logic fail.
You have yet to explain why you see bullying, even if proven, as an automatic bar on ennoblement. One has to conclude that it's just your usual mindless partisanship.
Well, if the Remoaners are going to start name calling.
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail 2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
So the investigation happens and John Bercow is found to have been a bully. You then conclude he should not be a member of the House of Lords?
Rather depends on the results of the enquiry - why your rush to prejudge it?
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
1) He really isn't my hero. Your idea that he might be just shows how blinded by your pathological hatred you are.
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
I'll answer that. If he's guilty of what he's accused of - systematically bullying staff to whom he had a duty of care - he shouldn't be getting a peerage. The fact that bullies may have got them in the past doesn't make it right to keep doing it. He's innocent until proven guilty of course, but given the difficulty of revoking a peerage, there's no harm in holding off.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
I look forward to you applying that just as stringently in the future when it's Conservative appointees in the frame (spoiler: you won't).
Be nice if she applied it to Scottish matters as well where shall we say she is a little bit bitter and one sided.
I'm not Carlotta, you've misgendered me #triggered
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I don't know what they're working on specifically but Health are hoovering up analysts on secondment. I'd assume they are looking at things like what you suggest.
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 am shielding with my daughter. My husband is staying at another house, on his own, a mile away. We agreed this so that he could bring me food etc and ensure my shielding. He has kept well away from people as far as possible, too.
Now according to the new laws, it would be a crime for me to have sex with my husband in my home when he visits me. And this from a government led by Boris Johnson! You can safely assume we will be following our instincts.
More seriously I am concerned that lockdown is being eased too soon. And so is my daughter, surprisingly. Desperate as she is to reopen her business, what she fears more is a partial reopening, the virus starting to spread again and a further lockdown. That would be the end for her and many in a similar position.
So we are remaining strict about lockdown and enjoying sitting in the sun, which is utterly glorious!
One of the many problems with the R number is that we are seeing in a distant mirror, darkly. To take the example of schools reopening today it will be at least 3 weeks before we will know if that is causing an uptick in infections. If it is it will be almost too late to do anything about it and a second wave might well be in the pipeline.
An effective track and trace system would have been of enormous help in shortening the period of blindness because we would be proactively testing people exposed before symptoms had manifested. Unfortunately we don't have that.
Whilst I am deeply sympathetic to your daughter's situation I think we have little choice but to run the risk of easing the lockdown with sensible precautions such as handwashing, gels, social distancing etc. There is a risk, as with the schools, that we have to take a backward step again but our knowledge is not going to be good enough to take positive forward steps for far, far too long.
On the situation in the US, I'm seeing an increasing number of comments on social media blaming white nationalists and agents provocateur for the looting and destruction.
I don't know what the truth of that is. I've seen agents provocateur myself, so I know that it does happen, but even then they rely on more excitable elements of a crowd to join in. The white nationalists seem more likely to open fire on the crowds, as in Detroit, than to do something like use them as cover for looting to discredit the cause (seems a bit complex).
My main observation is that it's another example of the partisan divide becoming a truth divide. Everything bad must be the result of the other side. Everything from the other side must be bad. There is no room for considering reality where that makes life more complicated.
If we can't agree on the truth there's no hope for us. Meanwhile the Chinese look on and stand ready to take advantage.
Hahahahaha
Yeah, all those white nationalists in Detroit.
No, now the riots are providing bad optics Democrats need to make out it isn't them.
But sure, go with this. Why is Biden paying bail for white nationalists then?
The lords must he heaving a sigh of relief - I`m sure they don`t want him.
My theory is that the Committee used the technicality about party membership to block the appointment in an attempt to make the block non-controversial.
Given the issue between Bercow and the former Black Rod, it seems highly likely to me that there is a faction fight on this in the Lords - with a number backing the former Black Rod.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I just don't understand why people are not focusing on this. It is just so bloody obvious, even a lawyer can see it.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I just don't understand why people are not focusing on this. It is just so bloody obvious, even a lawyer can see it.
My understanding, via my friend at Imperial, is that a number of studies have/are being run on WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen - trying to get detailed information on how the infection spreads. Essentially they are contact tracing - but with great detail. Even using the virus genetics to try and build transmission trees...
Apparently the interesting thing is that the results seem to be all over the place - some seem to find a very low transmission rate, with people in close contact not catching it. Others find transmission between people with the briefest of contacts...
I genuinely have no idea. It is not at all clear who is doing the investigation. The Laura Cox Report came out in the autumn of 2018. More than enough time to complete the most thorough of investigations, not just into Bercow but others against whom allegations were made, including MPs, a point often forgotten.
From a professional perspective, it is utterly disgraceful that such an investigation should take so long.
Yes, I agree (we've been here before with the Labour panel dealing with complaints - not just about anti-semitism, they always take ridiculous amounts of time). A group of political opponents once made an unfounded complaint about me to the police - they took a year to consider and reject it, and then told me they'd not got round to it sooner as it appeared at first glance to be frivolous. I was never very worried but it would have been nice to know that right away. Generally, the recipients of complaints seem to suit themselves without worrying too much about the state of mind of both complainant and complainee (if that's a word).
At my Trust 3000 staff have had antibody testing since it was announced on Friday. They have suspended it for the remaining staff so that they can catch up in the Lab.
Thanks - do you know if the plan is to test all of the NHS first, or just a (national) sub-sample ? Kinda curious about the policy route they'll take with antibody testing in the wider public.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I just don't understand why people are not focusing on this. It is just so bloody obvious, even a lawyer can see it.
My understanding, via my friend at Imperial, is that a number of studies have/are being run on WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen - trying to get detailed information on how the infection spreads. Essentially they are contact tracing - but with great detail. Even using the virus genetics to try and build transmission trees...
Apparently the interesting thing is that the results seem to be all over the place - some seem to find a very low transmission rate, with people in close contact not catching it. Others find transmission between people with the briefest of contacts...
This is the super spreader thesis I keep wittering on about and it is undoubtedly a serious complication. Again, why do we have no idea what makes a "super spreader"? A test for that would be very helpful.
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.
It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.
You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.
We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.
I hope that data on who the new cases are and where the infections are coming from is being collected and analysed. it's certainly not being put in the public domain, as far as I can tell. if I had to guess I'd suggest mainly it is among NHS staff, care workers and possibly supermarket staff, but that would be a guess.
Whilst I agree the fact that these are guesses is a disgrace. Social workers, public transport workers and emergency services must also be at some considerable risk.
You'd hope there's serious egghead analysis of who is getting the virus going on. But I'm not sure there is. Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I just don't understand why people are not focusing on this. It is just so bloody obvious, even a lawyer can see it.
My understanding, via my friend at Imperial, is that a number of studies have/are being run on WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen - trying to get detailed information on how the infection spreads. Essentially they are contact tracing - but with great detail. Even using the virus genetics to try and build transmission trees...
Apparently the interesting thing is that the results seem to be all over the place - some seem to find a very low transmission rate, with people in close contact not catching it. Others find transmission between people with the briefest of contacts...
This is the super spreader thesis I keep wittering on about and it is undoubtedly a serious complication. Again, why do we have no idea what makes a "super spreader"? A test for that would be very helpful.
As the studies are being done by scientists, I find it hard to imagine, their first thought on the differing results, is not WHY?
Come back to me when you have anything coherent to write and you're not simply parading your partisan idiocy for all to see. I've explained clearly what I would do and why. And you? You're still sucking your pencil trying to work out exactly why you hate John Bercow so much.
I genuinely have no idea. It is not at all clear who is doing the investigation. The Laura Cox Report came out in the autumn of 2018. More than enough time to complete the most thorough of investigations, not just into Bercow but others against whom allegations were made, including MPs, a point often forgotten.
From a professional perspective, it is utterly disgraceful that such an investigation should take so long.
Yes, I agree (we've been here before with the Labour panel dealing with complaints - not just about anti-semitism, they always take ridiculous amounts of time). A group of political opponents once made an unfounded complaint about me to the police - they took a year to consider and reject it, and then told me they'd not got round to it sooner as it appeared at first glance to be frivolous. I was never very worried but it would have been nice to know that right away. Generally, the recipients of complaints seem to suit themselves without worrying too much about the state of mind of both complainant and complainee (if that's a word).
Surely the complaint that appears frivolous should be first on their list? They can quickly log it as closed if their investigation matches their hunch, which should be good for their own numbers - not to mention the health of those accused.
Comments
1) Brown isn't in the Lords - your logic fail
2) Brown's alleged bullying (which read as more temper than systematic, unlike the Bercow allegations) was in Downing Street - not the Houses of Parliament. Which is where you want to return Bercow to.
I haven't said its an "automatic bar on ennoblement" - I've said it shouldn't happen while an investigation is underway.
But to you the Remoaners hero should be elevated whatever the result of the enquiry....
We’re going to exercise certain restrictions and limitations to restrict the spread of the virus and reduce the death toll and economic damage. There’s a big difference.
Deciding “fuck it, let’s just do what we want” is the best route to another full lockdown (together with a big increase in deaths and bereavements, and suffering of those who merely get very ill). Something I, for one, really don’t want to see.
To fight the virus, you need a sustainable method. Lockdown is not it. It goes against all of human nature.
As I said, is bullying in your view an automatic bar on ennoblement? It's a simple question but you've been wholly unable to come up with any coherent answer.
As for your comments about "Remoaners", give your head a wobble and get yourself 20 IQ points back. As if John Bercow is going to make any difference either way in the House of Lords. Honestly. Don't you blush to reread the drivel you wrote?
Peerage are not like gongs, they arent just a status reward they grant legislative authority. Either it's even more carefully appointed or you might as well abolish it elect, both of which would require consideration of how to change our processes to adapt to that
- Has a government every over-ruled the Appointments Commission and put someone in the House of Lords?
- Is over-ruling the commission recognised in the system as an option. i.e. rules saying specifically this is an option
- What would over-ruling the commision be considered as? - argy-bargy in politics, or over throwing the effective mandate of the commision? Or what?
He's in East London/City so not sure which one it is.
What's so terribly wrong with waiting for its outcome? A question you have assiduously failed to address.
It must be frustrating to see your hero removed from the public stage of which he was so fond.
Seriously, I'd love a practical alternative. I'm having to explain the entire problem every sodding day to a distressed severely autistic boy.
Saying "Well, this is unacceptable" ain't going to cut the mustard. It's less unacceptable than hundreds of thousands dying.
And the left busily preparing themselves to scream "King" once again if he took any measures against Antifa.
Even though Conservative PMs have indulged in the hobby, formerly - https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2013/03/23/the-duel-fought-by-the-duke-of-wellington-and-the-earl-of-winchelsea-23-march-1829/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jaAgAFLtL0
2) We know the allegations. We can work on the basis of what in Scottish law I believe is known as a demurrer (ie assume the allegations are all proven). It would be ridiculous to bar him from the House of Lords now if they do not if proven amount to a reason to bar him. I have now asked you this question multiple times and you still seem to stumble over it.
It's now pretty obvious that you just don't like John Bercow and that if, hypothetically in the future, allegations of bullying are made against a Conservative candidate for a peerage (let's hypothetically call her Mitty Mattel), you will ardently argue that Ms Mattel should on no account see her peerage held up because her undoubted contribution to the upper house is one that the nation should not be deprived of.
In other words, naked hypocritical partisanship.
It is only time that has softened things.
But all that works a lot better if the initial rate of infections is lower, and at the moment lockdown is the only way to actively cut the infection rate. If a country needs to lockdown, it's because it has failed to manage the softer controls adequately. But there's no point pretending that failure hasn't happened.
There's less virus out there in the UK now than in late March, but more than in most other countries. So it's more of a gamble for us to lockdown right now. We might get away with it, but it's a gamble. And it's a big gamble, because if it goes wrong, we're back to the choice of costly lockdown or piles of corpses.
And bluntly, it's a distinctively British gamble to cut corners, spoil the ship for a ha'pennyworth of tar (yes, I know the short term cost is higher than that, but the principle holds) and focus on the short term figures rather than the big picture.
Now according to the new laws, it would be a crime for me to have sex with my husband in my home when he visits me. And this from a government led by Boris Johnson! You can safely assume we will be following our instincts.
More seriously I am concerned that lockdown is being eased too soon. And so is my daughter, surprisingly. Desperate as she is to reopen her business, what she fears more is a partial reopening, the virus starting to spread again and a further lockdown. That would be the end for her and many in a similar position.
So we are remaining strict about lockdown and enjoying sitting in the sun, which is utterly glorious!
This whole thing would be massively more bearable if people could see their closest friends and family. Yes ‘R’ will increase a bit, but yet this could continue for much longer. What other option is there? Realistically there will be no second lockdown.
The critics are only looking at the numbers, and are getting angry at people for not acting like robots. Humans are not robots.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372505/Police-say-no-one-spat-train-ticket-inspector-died-coronavirus.html
Police confirmed no action will be taken over the death of a rail worker who died after no evidence of someone spitting was found.
In a statement today the police said, based on key eye witness statements and a review of CCTV footage, there was no evidence of anyone spitting.
As long time Labour supporter who only joined the party in January and voted RLB 1 Starmer 2 I would say that Starmer is doing realistically as well/ slightly better than expected.
Like HYUFD I am sticking to my assumption at least for now that the Tories have a solid 40%+ at least as long as Johnson is leader and Labour has a ceiling of 38-40% in opinion polls and at the next election.
The weakness of the Lib Dems is most interesting - they might be strongly bleeding votes to Starmer's Labour but will probably have to wait until next year's county council elections to offset that with a bounce at the expense of the Tories in the South.
And, if it runs riot again, of course there will be a second lockdown, no matter how much we all may hate the concept. No Government, especially one whose core vote demographic is amongst the older electors, can afford to let a virus like this run free. They'll not abandon the elderly any more than they'd abandon Brexiteers. Maybe they'll call it something different to save face.
And if the death toll starts mounting, yes, people will comply again. They'll focus their ire on those who relaxed it too quickly and too soon and swiftly forget that they themselves were calling for it.
I'm hoping really strongly that the R-number doesn't climb too rapidly. I'm stone-cold certain there are a number of things we can do in the relaxation way that would keep it below 1 (we're finding out more and more things like outdoor activities being comparatively far less risky, for example); it's always possible that people will keep their heads (by and large) and keep to the less risky stuff.
I bloody well hope so, anyway. I was just getting used to being able to do more stuff.
In that case I'm now definitely in favour of offering Farage a peerage to a) fcuk with their heads and b) that there's no arsehole so arseholey that the British state won't stick Lord before their name.
But that doesn't mean it's a binary choice between 100% rule following and not giving a ****. I'm limiting my contact as much as I can, but there might be some times when, well lets face it, we're only human.
If you can limit your contact to a high proportion, then that's still reducing the risk, even if not by 100%.
The Seven dwarves are sticking to the rules though. One of them is Grumpy.
As long as it's the second one, then thats probably as good as can be expected.
By definition if 'R' does increase it will comtinue for longer.
As for Priti Patel, the wheels seem to have come off the allegations against her. But sure, if it's proven that she bullied her staff, that should call into question not just her suitability for a peerage in future but her current position.
Clear enough?
From a professional perspective, it is utterly disgraceful that such an investigation should take so long.
Solitary confinement - which this is, for some, in some part - has been proven to cause mental health problems. At the very least it can be incredibly stressful.
Some people love isolation - they are very rare.
They only imposed lockdown in the first place when it was politically unavoidable, but also when they thought the science was coalescing around it.
Then everyone else published it as fact.
If my friends and neighbours are in any way typical the over 60s will not be going to concerts / pubs / cinemas/ restaurants / sports events / theatres for the vey simple reason that it will be impossible to avoid the numpties who don't give a shit.
Most of the hospitality industry is going to have to figure out how to turn a profit without the grey pound until such times as there is a vaccine.
It's clear the Gov't needs to have luck on its side. It might get lucky, it might not.
If we're running at 8,000 infections per day, and if the R rate stays around 1, then we'd see about 240,000 infections in a month. Very roughly this is about 1-in-200 of the adult population being infected at any moment, which seems like an awful lot of people to trace. Of course, it still makes much more sense to quarantine the 1-in-200 rather than sort-of-quarantining everyone with a lockdown, but can the system actually achieve this?
This is where lockdown timing matters a lot. Would a further week of lockdown cut infections to 4,000 per day? Is halving the number of cases you need to contact-trace going to make a substantial difference to the difficulty of the task?
I feel like we're back in the situation of mid-March, where anyone with a pocket calculator and a bit of common sense would start asking these questions, but the government doesn't seem to want to tell us what it thinks the answers are, presumably because they can't agree amongst themselves.
1) does the person in question have a contribution to make worthy of the House of Lords?
2) does the person in question have a flaw that is disqualifying?
For me, the bullying allegations even if made out do not disqualify someone who otherwise has a substantial contribution to make. So I would admit both John Bercow and (should the circumstance ever arise) Priti Patel to the House of Lords regardless of how bullying allegations against them pan out. The allegations made are simply not serious enough to justify depriving the upper house of their undoubted experience.
There's also the human instinct to stay alive. Death is also a major health problem (with apologies for sounding trite). And the deaths of loved ones is also incredibly stressful.
So's hospitalisation and intensive care.
As I say, I'm certain that there are possibilities for more socialisation without things going exponential. We've not got as much information on it as I'd like - many of those arguing the other side have taken refuge in straight denial or pointing towards irrelevancies.
The outside thing is very useful. And I'd suggest that pub gardens and outside cafes and restaurants with retention of social distancing should be higher on the agenda than reopening smaller shops.
I had hoped there might be reliable corroboration of earlier suggestions that young children couldn't act as carriers; unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
It's possible that mandating use of masks would help limit R to the point where 2 metres could be relaxed to 1.5 or even 1 metre as another prospect, but few people are doing it without it being mandated.
More resources being thrown into a fast, self-contained, reliable antigens test (the 20-minute thing) would be a bloody good idea as well - you could mandate that special relaxation for a controlled period in a controlled environment (which could be indoors) is allowed if everyone takes and passes that test before entering. This sort of thing could allow full family reunions, or even limited internal pub and restaurant use.
Stuff like that.
The leaked comments also say that they was a lot of um'ing and ah'ing over Watson, but in his case it was the paedophile claims issue, while Murphy was seen as a "slam-dunk" for unspecified reasons presumed to relate to the handling of anti-semitism allegations.
To be fair, none of this seems to have Johnson's fingerprints on it - it's all the Commission. But their decision-making criteria seem mysterious and subjective, and the willingness of a member (presumably) to gossip anonymously about them makes it even worse.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-watson-peerage-bercow-corbyn-karie-murphy-lords-reject-a9540941.html
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/contract/
I don't think their voters, who are mainly those suffering from massive and congenital cognitive impairment, have really noticed.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFoulkes/status/1267364222121345024?s=20
The children carrier issue is a current medical debate - lots of studies in various countries. Including the UK, where, of course, the schools remained partially open throughout.
My understanding is that the 20 minute, on the spot anti-gen test is being pushed forward as fast as possible, for a variety of reasons*. However, using it before it has finished a proper clinical trial would be foolish.
* I was told that apart from the obvious reasons to do with lab resources, time etc. that a significant factor was removing control of testing from certain systemic interests. Who regard the issue of lab vs field testing as protecting their empires in the lab running area.
Anyone willing to argue to the contrary, because it seems a terrible rule to me?
1) I wouldn't apply this criterion, as I think the House of Lords is a joke institution full of duffers anyway. I'd prefer to render this whole debate academic by having an elected upper house (and if John Bercow, Priti Patel, or anyone else got elected to it then best of luck to them).
2) Given that it is for now an appointed chamber, I would consider bullying of this sort to be a disqualifying flaw, and would apply that regardless of the potential appointee's politics.
Has anyone with a positive test been asked which is their predominant mode of transport for instance ?
I don't know what the truth of that is. I've seen agents provocateur myself, so I know that it does happen, but even then they rely on more excitable elements of a crowd to join in. The white nationalists seem more likely to open fire on the crowds, as in Detroit, than to do something like use them as cover for looting to discredit the cause (seems a bit complex).
My main observation is that it's another example of the partisan divide becoming a truth divide. Everything bad must be the result of the other side. Everything from the other side must be bad. There is no room for considering reality where that makes life more complicated.
If we can't agree on the truth there's no hope for us. Meanwhile the Chinese look on and stand ready to take advantage.
https://twitter.com/ChampagneChonny/status/1266959531357208579
An effective track and trace system would have been of enormous help in shortening the period of blindness because we would be proactively testing people exposed before symptoms had manifested. Unfortunately we don't have that.
Whilst I am deeply sympathetic to your daughter's situation I think we have little choice but to run the risk of easing the lockdown with sensible precautions such as handwashing, gels, social distancing etc. There is a risk, as with the schools, that we have to take a backward step again but our knowledge is not going to be good enough to take positive forward steps for far, far too long.
Yeah, all those white nationalists in Detroit.
No, now the riots are providing bad optics Democrats need to make out it isn't them.
But sure, go with this. Why is Biden paying bail for white nationalists then?
https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/biden-staffers-reportedly-donating-to-bail-fund-for-protesters/
Given the issue between Bercow and the former Black Rod, it seems highly likely to me that there is a faction fight on this in the Lords - with a number backing the former Black Rod.
https://twitter.com/MCHammer/status/1267324489085251584?s=20
https://twitter.com/ranakba/status/1267261313987862529
Apparently the interesting thing is that the results seem to be all over the place - some seem to find a very low transmission rate, with people in close contact not catching it. Others find transmission between people with the briefest of contacts...
Thanks - do you know if the plan is to test all of the NHS first, or just a (national) sub-sample ? Kinda curious about the policy route they'll take with antibody testing in the wider public.
Mogg's craven attempt to support BoZo exposed