I see Simon Clarke MP has finally worked out where Auschwitz is on a map and deleted his tweet.
What was his tweet? I enjoyed his views on the 1200 year old nation state very much.
@IrvineWelsh Irvine, it’s precisely because Germany has bravely confronted her past that Auschwitz still stands as a memorial of man’s inhumanity to man.
Lasted 23 hours with an absolutely terrific ratio.
That's good. Even ignoring the historical and geographic ignorance, equating some chi chi, reputation glossing statuary with Auschwitz is pretty special.
Posted a link to this on a previous thread, but worth reposting - a comprehensive and impressive study:
Preliminary analysis of SARS-CoV-2 importation & establishment of UK transmission lineages https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507 ...Here we provide estimates of trends through time in the number and sources of SARS-CoV-2 introductions into the UK. We obtain these estimates by combining data on the numbers of inbound travellers to the UK, estimated numbers of infections worldwide, and large-scale virus genome sequencing undertaken by the COG-UK consortium. Our preliminary analysis provides a platform for evaluating future trends in virus introduction, however it does not attempt to measure the relative contributions to the UK epidemic of importation versus local transmission, nor model the possible impact of public health interventions on virus introduction.
The key conclusions of our analysis are as follows:
The UK epidemic comprises a very large number of importations due to inbound international travel. We detect 1356 independently-introduced transmission lineages, however, we expect this number to be an under-estimate.
The speed of detection of UK transmission lineages via genome sequencing has increased through time.
Many UK transmission lineages now appear to be very rare or extinct, as they have not been detected by genome sequencing for >4 weeks.
The rate and source of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 lineages into the UK changed substantially and rapidly through time. The rate peaked in mid-March and most introductions occurred during March 2020.
We estimate that ≈34% of detected UK transmission lineages arrived via inbound travel from Spain, ≈29% from France, ≈14% from Italy, and ≈23% from other countries. The relative contributions of these locations were highly dynamic.
The increasing rates and shifting source locations of SARS-CoV-2 importation were not fully captured by early contact tracing.
Our results are preliminary and further analyses of these data are ongoing.
The COG-UK consortium has to date generated >20,000 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences from infections in the UK. Phylogenetic analysis of these genomes, and those from other countries, can be used to identify individual UK transmission lineages....
One of the reasons that Blair so comprehensively outmaneuvered Michael Howard to win a comfortable majority on a sliver of the popular vote was precisely because he took him very seriously. The day before his uncontested succession, Blair called a crisis meeting of his cabinet, and commented to a friendly journalist (who quoted him as 'an informed source') 'Howard is good. We need to up our game here if we want to see him off.'
And it is fair to say that while Howard helpfully messed up over the Hutton report, Blair's very focussed attacks on him and detailed work on his policies, plus a decision to make peace with Gordon Brown on terms that were, to put it mildly, politically disadvantageous, were a key part in the 2005 election victory.
By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.
Who do I see in the current PM? The shrewd political operator who took a flawed but feisty and intelligent opponent seriously and won, or the hubristic ones who dismissed their opponents as useless lightweights, and lost?
Hmmm...tricky one.
Which is a long winded way of saying Barwell is right.
I believe most of the battle for any Labour leader of the opposition.Is that voters can see that they can be PM. SKS fits that criteria as did Blair in 1994. My father a life long Conservative said to me that Starmer is impressive. I think the same, and was relieved that the Labour Party, and the country has a credible alternative .
When Corbyn led the opposition I was in blind panic about what he might do if he ever got into power. Even worse than I am about what Johnson is actually doing while in power.
Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.
All too often such schemes either at as a bung to the middle classes who can already afford to make the change, or even have perverse incentives where the objective of the scheme is replaced by an economic one. e.g. Get solar panels in order to make money not use the electricity.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
Well fair play for putting money on it. I think the rules are 'cease to be leader of Conservative party' (there was a bit of a controversy with T May I think which I lost money on). I'm not sure even if Boris announced he was standing down today, whether that would happen by end of month in practice.
I have no desire to win on account of his health, but today he appeared worse than he has for some time (that is, when we have seen him, which we haven't recently). It may not be in his hands for much longer in which case I don't know whether that affects the timing, but certainly point taken on the process.
Posted a link to this on a previous thread, but worth reposting - a comprehensive and impressive study: [snip]
Yes, very interesting - thanks for posting that. I'm surprised that they found so many of the infections came from Spain and France. The point about early contact tracing missing significant source locations is very significant.
One of the reasons that Blair so comprehensively outmaneuvered Michael Howard to win a comfortable majority on a sliver of the popular vote was precisely because he took him very seriously. The day before his uncontested succession, Blair called a crisis meeting of his cabinet, and commented to a friendly journalist (who quoted him as 'an informed source') 'Howard is good. We need to up our game here if we want to see him off.'
And it is fair to say that while Howard helpfully messed up over the Hutton report, Blair's very focussed attacks on him and detailed work on his policies, plus a decision to make peace with Gordon Brown on terms that were, to put it mildly, politically disadvantageous, were a key part in the 2005 election victory.
By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.
Who do I see in the current PM? The shrewd political operator who took a flawed but feisty and intelligent opponent seriously and won, or the hubristic ones who dismissed their opponents as useless lightweights, and lost?
Hmmm...tricky one.
Which is a long winded way of saying Barwell is right.
I believe most of the battle for any Labour leader of the opposition.Is that voters can see that they can be PM. SKS fits that criteria as did Blair in 1994. My father a life long Conservative said to me that Starmer is impressive. I think the same, and was relieved that the Labour Party, and the country has a credible alternative .
When Corbyn led the opposition I was in blind panic about what he might do if he ever got into power. Even worse than I am about what Johnson is actually doing while in power.
Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.
I'll take that as a bloody good start.
Agreed. I think Johnson utterly useless if judged on his response to the pandemic. Corbyn would probably have been worse.
Irrespective of the politics, I'd be happy if the country were in the hands of a leader displaying basic competence.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
He clearly isn't 100%. Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.
If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.
However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.
Well, he didn't really work hard for it, unless by working hard you mean lots of duplicituous double dealing, chicanery and backstabbing.
Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.
British exceptionalism.
So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).
The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions. I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
It is a shift, previously they were saying they want us to ask for an extension, now they are preparing to ask us for an extension. I'm not sure what practical difference that makes but it is a change.
Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.
British exceptionalism.
So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).
The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions. I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.
I guess it's because the English were viewed as trouble anyway. But yes, it was incredibly harsh on the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Coventry and Everton.
Not seen todays poll with big shift against extension
He's not going to change the negotiating position based off any polls (Whatever it is). Why should British domestic polling be any guide for the EU in a negotiation right now ?
Tbh, I'm not sure that's really the case now. We're at ~ 70 deaths per day in English hospitals and falling towards 50 and there's a few hundred new cases per day in England recorded by pillar 1 testing.
The virus is under control in the community, the government reporting of it has been atrociously handled. We're probably at the same part of the curve as Italy and Spain but the government reporting deaths from 6 weeks ago as if they happened yesterday is painting an unnecessarily negative picture and it is causing an ongoing panic among the public and among other countries who don't want UK travellers.
Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.
British exceptionalism.
So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).
The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions. I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.
I guess it's because the English were viewed as trouble anyway. But yes, it was incredibly harsh on the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Coventry and Everton.
Not to mention Luton and Palace. So many clubs missing out on their only shot in Europe. Liverpool have a lot to answer for.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
One of the reasons that Blair so comprehensively outmaneuvered Michael Howard to win a comfortable majority on a sliver of the popular vote was precisely because he took him very seriously. The day before his uncontested succession, Blair called a crisis meeting of his cabinet, and commented to a friendly journalist (who quoted him as 'an informed source') 'Howard is good. We need to up our game here if we want to see him off.'
And it is fair to say that while Howard helpfully messed up over the Hutton report, Blair's very focussed attacks on him and detailed work on his policies, plus a decision to make peace with Gordon Brown on terms that were, to put it mildly, politically disadvantageous, were a key part in the 2005 election victory.
By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.
Who do I see in the current PM? The shrewd political operator who took a flawed but feisty and intelligent opponent seriously and won, or the hubristic ones who dismissed their opponents as useless lightweights, and lost?
Hmmm...tricky one.
Which is a long winded way of saying Barwell is right.
I believe most of the battle for any Labour leader of the opposition.Is that voters can see that they can be PM. SKS fits that criteria as did Blair in 1994. My father a life long Conservative said to me that Starmer is impressive. I think the same, and was relieved that the Labour Party, and the country has a credible alternative .
When Corbyn led the opposition I was in blind panic about what he might do if he ever got into power. Even worse than I am about what Johnson is actually doing while in power.
Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.
I'll take that as a bloody good start.
Agreed. I think Johnson utterly useless if judged on his response to the pandemic. Corbyn would probably have been worse.
Irrespective of the politics, I'd be happy if the country were in the hands of a leader displaying basic competence.
I believe it a given that Corbyn would have been a rabbit in the headlights, incapable of making a decision, but that sounds familiar for students of the present incumbent.
At least Corbyn might have had the decency to turn up to a Cobra meeting or two, although he might have slept through them.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
BoJo clearly isn't enjoying this. And there's not much in his life story that indicates he has the resilience to keep being battered like this relentlessly and indefinitely. He can't even have a holiday to look forward to.
My Personality theory may turn out to be rubbish. But as it stands, the only LotO's with worse deficits in personality ratings than Starmer has with Boris were Michael Foot vs Maggie, Hague vs Blair, and Jezza vs Boris
We probably won't ever find out. The list of possible successors doesn't look like it has a personality between them. Rory S was the only one who did, and he got lost in the purge.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Posted a link to this on a previous thread, but worth reposting - a comprehensive and impressive study:
Preliminary analysis of SARS-CoV-2 importation & establishment of UK transmission lineages https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507 ...Here we provide estimates of trends through time in the number and sources of SARS-CoV-2 introductions into the UK. We obtain these estimates by combining data on the numbers of inbound travellers to the UK, estimated numbers of infections worldwide, and large-scale virus genome sequencing undertaken by the COG-UK consortium. Our preliminary analysis provides a platform for evaluating future trends in virus introduction, however it does not attempt to measure the relative contributions to the UK epidemic of importation versus local transmission, nor model the possible impact of public health interventions on virus introduction.
The key conclusions of our analysis are as follows:
The UK epidemic comprises a very large number of importations due to inbound international travel. We detect 1356 independently-introduced transmission lineages, however, we expect this number to be an under-estimate.
The speed of detection of UK transmission lineages via genome sequencing has increased through time.
Many UK transmission lineages now appear to be very rare or extinct, as they have not been detected by genome sequencing for >4 weeks.
The rate and source of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 lineages into the UK changed substantially and rapidly through time. The rate peaked in mid-March and most introductions occurred during March 2020.
We estimate that ≈34% of detected UK transmission lineages arrived via inbound travel from Spain, ≈29% from France, ≈14% from Italy, and ≈23% from other countries. The relative contributions of these locations were highly dynamic.
The increasing rates and shifting source locations of SARS-CoV-2 importation were not fully captured by early contact tracing.
Our results are preliminary and further analyses of these data are ongoing.
The COG-UK consortium has to date generated >20,000 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences from infections in the UK. Phylogenetic analysis of these genomes, and those from other countries, can be used to identify individual UK transmission lineages....
Thanks.
Timeline of Guernsey mandatory quarantine for 14 days on arrival:
Feb 6: Mainland China Feb 7: Added Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. Feb 25. Added Iran & Italy (parts designated by Italian govt) to automatic mandatory, moved some and added others (Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, Northern Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia) to 'quarantine if ANY symptoms' March 19. Mandatory quarantine for ALL arrivals - still in place.
40 days without a case, UK equivalent of 13,000 deaths.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Spot on: they are positioning themselves for emergency negotiations in early 2021 and hint dropping at that time what it wouldn't be an emergency if the UK had taken the EU's suggestion now.
If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:
The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.
For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.
I must say the 3 months or so after the Tory landslide where he went into hiding and wasn't endlessly trawling through twitter for rubbish to post was arguably the golden age of PB.
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.
Being boringly unpredictable is hardly any better.
Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.
British exceptionalism.
So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).
The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions. I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.
I guess it's because the English were viewed as trouble anyway. But yes, it was incredibly harsh on the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Coventry and Everton.
Yes the English clubs were seen in that way during the 80s. However the English national team went to the world cup in 86 and 90. As well as the European championship in 88. I believe the football banning orders , which were brought in during this period worked well. As they do today. I had a lot to do with them , when I worked for the Police. Many were Leeds fans who lived in the York area.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Spot on: they are positioning themselves for emergency negotiations in early 2021 and hint dropping at that time what it wouldn't be an emergency if the UK had taken the EU's suggestion now.
If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:
The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.
For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.
You may just be in for a surprise and not the one you hope for
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
He clearly isn't 100%. Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.
If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.
However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.
That's quite fair. And I am a Boris fan, or at least a fan of Boris as was. It is a persona tragedy for him, but it is just the case: he has clearly been whacked by Covid, and that can take a long time to recover from (if you ever recover); I have close friends who have had it for months and are still very sick.
Also, he does just not have the skillset for a crisis like this. He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work. That's not his forte.
I've been saying for ages he will go early 2021, but now I do wonder if it could be a lot earlier.
Being someone who could only make a *good* PM in effortless good times is hardly a commendation for the job, is it?
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The government has said here won't be an extension under any circumstances. They've even written it into a brain-dead law. A world pandemic, and the fact that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of businesses and governments being even remotely ready for whatever is eventually cobbled together (if anything) for Jan 1st, are not factors which are going to change this ideologically insane government's position on this.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
But more importantly no further payments at all, no interference with our covid economic plans including tax and state aid and that they will compromise on the CFP
Yes, although the numbers to pay attention to are the new positive tests, and the hospital admissions (and current occupancy). If they keep coming down as we keep loosening lockdown, then all is good.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
And its name was the General Lee
Indeed.
Owner, golfer Bubba Watson has since removed the flag. Wokeist. or what?
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.
I didn't predict his passionate defence of deep-fried haggis and curry sauce above, and all the better for it.
Tbh, I'm not sure that's really the case now. We're at ~ 70 deaths per day in English hospitals and falling towards 50 and there's a few hundred new cases per day in England recorded by pillar 1 testing.
The virus is under control in the community, the government reporting of it has been atrociously handled. We're probably at the same part of the curve as Italy and Spain but the government reporting deaths from 6 weeks ago as if they happened yesterday is painting an unnecessarily negative picture and it is causing an ongoing panic among the public and among other countries who don't want UK travellers.
I also blame the media. Even now they still report the deaths figure as died in the last 24 hours. Drives me mad. BBC guilty yesterday. Currently fewer than 100 a day are dying in hospital from Covid. Horrific, tragic for those concerned, but not the number that the media trots out.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
Yes, although the numbers to pay attention to are the new positive tests, and the hospital admissions (and current occupancy). If they keep coming down as we keep loosening lockdown, then all is good.
The volume of inbound travel (20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain in mid-March) shows that individual events, such as football matches, likely made a negligible contribution to the overall number of imports at that time. Large-scale and longer-term trends in prevalence and mobility are much more important.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The government has said here won't be an extension under any circumstances. They've even written it into a brain-dead law. A world pandemic, and the fact that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of businesses and governments being even remotely ready for whatever is eventually cobbled together (if anything) for Jan 1st, are not factors which are going to change this ideologically insane government's position on this.
Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Spot on: they are positioning themselves for emergency negotiations in early 2021 and hint dropping at that time what it wouldn't be an emergency if the UK had taken the EU's suggestion now.
If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:
The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.
For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.
You may just be in for a surprise and not the one you hope for
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.
No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Spot on: they are positioning themselves for emergency negotiations in early 2021 and hint dropping at that time what it wouldn't be an emergency if the UK had taken the EU's suggestion now.
If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:
The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.
For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.
You may just be in for a surprise and not the one you hope for
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
Exactly. This way they can say that we insisted on putting ourselves over a barrel.
So what's next? We have gone from statues to movies in 48 hours. If movies, why not books? If GWTW the movie is racist, I am sure the book is too. We used to have to burn these, but nowadays Amazon will just retire the kindle version, and that will be that. And paintings: I am sure the National Portrait Gallery is crammed with pictures of these bastards, so why not just torch the building, because who needs paintings and there's sure to be photographs of most of them anyway?
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
PB tories want to stoke outrage to distract from the ongoing unprecedented epic fuck-ups of Johnson's government. Simples.
Lol the EU parliament tell the UK to reconsider their position. That's going to carry a lot of weight.
Ponder the UK government for a moment, Max. You yourself have written very eloquently about the inadequacies and incompetence of this government.
And they are united around no extension. And a lot else besides, although their talisman is currently fighting for breath and his own good health (no fault of his, of course).
But it is this government which must respond to anything the EU proposes. You yourself have said how incompetent they are and yet you employ here pre-June 2016 rhetoric as though we had competent, coherent, sensible leaders. We don't.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
He clearly isn't 100%. Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.
If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.
However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.
That's quite fair. And I am a Boris fan, or at least a fan of Boris as was. It is a persona tragedy for him, but it is just the case: he has clearly been whacked by Covid, and that can take a long time to recover from (if you ever recover); I have close friends who have had it for months and are still very sick.
Also, he does just not have the skillset for a crisis like this. He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work. That's not his forte.
I've been saying for ages he will go early 2021, but now I do wonder if it could be a lot earlier.
Being someone who could only make a *good* PM in effortless good times is hardly a commendation for the job, is it?
The excuse that Johnson apologists now give is "the virus took it out of him". No, while one can feel some sympathy for an obese man being hospitalised, the reality was that he was shit before he was struck down. A few of us tried to tell Tory members that he was monumentally unsuited for the role. All that is happening now is that reality is coming home fast. The only thing the virus has taken out of him is that the emergency that it has created has further magnified his unsuitability to leadership.
Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.
No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.
It is an article of faith for a reason. Its remarkable that you still don't understand that.
Yes, although the numbers to pay attention to are the new positive tests, and the hospital admissions (and current occupancy). If they keep coming down as we keep loosening lockdown, then all is good.
... until two weeks later?
Well obviously. We've seen no big increases despite the increased use of beaches, parks etc. Allowing more people to meet outside has not caused a spike. VE day didn't cause a spike. This is not a call to go back to normal today. But I think most people are applying social distancing, wfh, washing much more stringently than occurred before lockdown, quite possibly due to the 40k, (or 50k , or 60k) deaths that we've seen. We get that it is serious, and for the most part, most are willing to do the right thing.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
OK, temporarily removing Gone with the Wind from the Warner catalogue is a step too far though.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The government has said here won't be an extension under any circumstances. They've even written it into a brain-dead law. A world pandemic, and the fact that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of businesses and governments being even remotely ready for whatever is eventually cobbled together (if anything) for Jan 1st, are not factors which are going to change this ideologically insane government's position on this.
No extension appears to be HMG's reddest line. If they prioritise that, they deprioritise everything else. Which means they are not particularly interested in getting a good deal (they are not prepared even in theory to give it the time it needs) or even interested in getting a deal at all.
Don't know, when it comes to it, whether they will select Bad Deal or No Deal. I am not sure they know themselves. Yesterday a stream of clearly briefed Tory MPs lined up in the Commons to say it's all the EU's fault, which would imply a preference for No Deal. Penny Morduant who was taking the questions on behalf of the government had no answer to any questions that didn't involve an expectation of a Deal (albeit presumably a Bad one).
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
The volume of inbound travel (20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain in mid-March) shows that individual events, such as football matches, likely made a negligible contribution to the overall number of imports at that time. Large-scale and longer-term trends in prevalence and mobility are much more important.
That's what I was saying at the time.
If the UK wanted to stop people coming over from Spain they should have done that, not fret over football games.
He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.
That is the definition of Brexit.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.
The levels of boring predictability on this site are such that I don't think one can simply declare a victor like this without a proper consideration of the contenders. Also, since people are always slagging Scott off for posting things off Twitter and failing to engage with proper arguments it seems a bit rich that your comment is in response to him engaging with one of your comments and making what seems to be a fair and reasonable critique of it. In fact, given that, I think your accusation of boring predictability must be struck down.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
Quite. Putting it off and off makes the less stable amongst us on the topic get ever more agitated and fearful of the outcome. It really is best just to do it, emerge blinking into the sun, check all our appendages are still present, and get on with it.
Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.
No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.
It is an article of faith for a reason. Its remarkable that you still don't understand that.
Articles of faith belong to irrational belief sets. No harm in them when they are part of religions perhaps, but when they belong to dogmatic populist political philosophies they are nothing short of fucking stupid. But then that sums up Brexit and the befuddled thinking of many of those that still believe in it.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
You do know that we have left, right?
You do know that many are trying to delay the actual day in a vain attempt that the longer the delay the more they hope we will end up remaining
Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.
No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.
It is an article of faith for a reason. Its remarkable that you still don't understand that.
Of course I understand it. I was a member of the party as it descended into this madness.
But, irrespective of the reasons for the madness, the fact still remains that business and governments are not going to be even remotely ready for Jan 1st. There is no getting round this: to be ready in time, they first of all need to know - in excruciating detail - what the new arrangement are, that is say such boring things as the information required for each and every one of the zillions of new paper or electronic forms which will have to be filled in. Then they need to train up lots of customs agents (50,000 according the UK government), plus hundreds of thousands of internal staff. They (businesses and government) need to implement major new computer systems, and test them with full-scale trials. They also need to figure out how on earth a roll-on, roll-off terminal at Dover, currently set up for a continuous stream of lorries, can physically handle the delays with drivers waiting while the paperwork is sorted out. No-one seems to have an answer to that.
Even without Covid-19, all that would now be impossible to get done on time. With Covid-19, it's even worse.
So what's next? We have gone from statues to movies in 48 hours. If movies, why not books? If GWTW the movie is racist, I am sure the book is too. We used to have to burn these, but nowadays Amazon will just retire the kindle version, and that will be that. And paintings: I am sure the National Portrait Gallery is crammed with pictures of these bastards, so why not just torch the building, because who needs paintings and there's sure to be photographs of most of them anyway?
Isn't it the market rather than governments who're deciding these are no longer commodities that they want to trade in? I might have more sympathy with the barbarians at the gates lads if there was any sign of governments organising statue dookings and dvd burnings.
Having ploughed through Gone With The Wind in my days of profligate reading, I feel it's better suited to being an artefact in a museum rather than waiting on a bookshelf for me to revisit.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
You do know that we have left, right?
A lot of Brexiters are like those Japanese soldiers that are still fighting the last war. The only difference is that the former are only cut off from reality by their own stupidity lol.
Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.
I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?
The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).
Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?
If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.
That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks? Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.
You do know that we have left, right?
You do know that many are trying to delay the actual day in a vain attempt that the longer the delay the more they hope we will end up remaining
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
I think that's fair enough. The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.
UK/Spain identical at 57%. As with the rest of Europe, both seem to be back to normal levels of deaths.
Peru by far the worst hit in the world (123%), but looks to have peaked as of jun/3.
They've added Brazil - it was at 28k deaths four weeks ago, twice the official count. 50% undercount has been seen in several other countries earlier in their epidemic, and would imply the current figure is around 75k.
Chile looking a bit worrying. It seems most of south America has a major problem now.
Comments
Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.
I'll take that as a bloody good start.
I think Johnson utterly useless if judged on his response to the pandemic. Corbyn would probably have been worse.
Irrespective of the politics, I'd be happy if the country were in the hands of a leader displaying basic competence.
A question to stymie the Oracle of Delphi.
https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1270722969367543811?s=20
I think I'd draw the line at curry sauce with deep fried haggis.
I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.
It's fizzling out, isn't it?
It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.
But, with this stuff, remember the 7 day average. We will really know about today, early next week.
And deaths are a lagging indicator.
The cases numbers, later, will be interesting.
Deep fried Haggis is sublime, and chip shop curry sauce is very nectar.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
The virus is under control in the community, the government reporting of it has been atrociously handled. We're probably at the same part of the curve as Italy and Spain but the government reporting deaths from 6 weeks ago as if they happened yesterday is painting an unnecessarily negative picture and it is causing an ongoing panic among the public and among other countries who don't want UK travellers.
At least Corbyn might have had the decency to turn up to a Cobra meeting or two, although he might have slept through them.
Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Timeline of Guernsey mandatory quarantine for 14 days on arrival:
Feb 6: Mainland China
Feb 7: Added Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.
Feb 25. Added Iran & Italy (parts designated by Italian govt) to automatic mandatory, moved some and added others (Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, Northern Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia) to 'quarantine if ANY symptoms'
March 19. Mandatory quarantine for ALL arrivals - still in place.
40 days without a case, UK equivalent of 13,000 deaths.
If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:
https://www.ft.com/content/7efb877a-8b58-4f7d-9a35-4d21de6638e4
The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.
For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.
However the English national team went to the world cup in 86 and 90.
As well as the European championship in 88.
I believe the football banning orders , which were brought in during this period worked well.
As they do today.
I had a lot to do with them , when I worked for the Police.
Many were Leeds fans who lived in the York area.
Owner, golfer Bubba Watson has since removed the flag. Wokeist. or what?
Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?
Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks?
Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?
An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.
The volume of inbound travel (20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain in mid-March) shows that individual events, such as football matches, likely made a negligible contribution to the overall number of imports at that time. Large-scale and longer-term trends in prevalence and mobility are much more important.
I can see that going down well across the nations in europe
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
Oh.
And they are united around no extension. And a lot else besides, although their talisman is currently fighting for breath and his own good health (no fault of his, of course).
But it is this government which must respond to anything the EU proposes. You yourself have said how incompetent they are and yet you employ here pre-June 2016 rhetoric as though we had competent, coherent, sensible leaders. We don't.
Goodness.
Don't know, when it comes to it, whether they will select Bad Deal or No Deal. I am not sure they know themselves. Yesterday a stream of clearly briefed Tory MPs lined up in the Commons to say it's all the EU's fault, which would imply a preference for No Deal. Penny Morduant who was taking the questions on behalf of the government had no answer to any questions that didn't involve an expectation of a Deal (albeit presumably a Bad one).
If the UK wanted to stop people coming over from Spain they should have done that, not fret over football games.
Also, since people are always slagging Scott off for posting things off Twitter and failing to engage with proper arguments it seems a bit rich that your comment is in response to him engaging with one of your comments and making what seems to be a fair and reasonable critique of it. In fact, given that, I think your accusation of boring predictability must be struck down.
https://twitter.com/Nikki_Levy/status/1270725086895460359
But, irrespective of the reasons for the madness, the fact still remains that business and governments are not going to be even remotely ready for Jan 1st. There is no getting round this: to be ready in time, they first of all need to know - in excruciating detail - what the new arrangement are, that is say such boring things as the information required for each and every one of the zillions of new paper or electronic forms which will have to be filled in. Then they need to train up lots of customs agents (50,000 according the UK government), plus hundreds of thousands of internal staff. They (businesses and government) need to implement major new computer systems, and test them with full-scale trials. They also need to figure out how on earth a roll-on, roll-off terminal at Dover, currently set up for a continuous stream of lorries, can physically handle the delays with drivers waiting while the paperwork is sorted out. No-one seems to have an answer to that.
Even without Covid-19, all that would now be impossible to get done on time. With Covid-19, it's even worse.
Having ploughed through Gone With The Wind in my days of profligate reading, I feel it's better suited to being an artefact in a museum rather than waiting on a bookshelf for me to revisit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8405899/Museum-curator-tweets-advice-destroy-bronze-statues-chemicals-BLM-protests.html
Doesn't look like a career enhancing move.
The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.
UK/Spain identical at 57%. As with the rest of Europe, both seem to be back to normal levels of deaths.
Peru by far the worst hit in the world (123%), but looks to have peaked as of jun/3.
They've added Brazil - it was at 28k deaths four weeks ago, twice the official count. 50% undercount has been seen in several other countries earlier in their epidemic, and would imply the current figure is around 75k.
Chile looking a bit worrying. It seems most of south America has a major problem now.