Lawyers of PB: since I finished my exams I’ve got “advanced certification” in both Lexis and Westlaw. Is there any other systems or software, in your view, it would be useful to familiarize myself with for CV purposes?
I wouldn’t worry too much about them, you’ll be shown how to use anything you need on the job.
If you have good Excel skills, you will be regarded by most lawyers as some kind of wizard. So advertise that if that applies to you.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
The scientific advice was that this virus would have to run its course and that there was little that we could do that would have any effect. This proved to be wrong. Lockdown worked far more effectively than expected. The hindsight is that by going into lockdown earlier we could have reduced the death toll. That looks provisionally right. The scientific advice (and possibly the economic advice) was that we would only tolerate lockdown for a certain period of time and it was therefore important that that time was used to reduce what was expected to be peak pressure on the NHS. I think this has been proven broadly correct. The lockdown has frayed at the edges increasingly in the last few weeks and not just because of Cummings. The scientific advice was that as soon as the lockdown ended the virus would come back and that it was very important that this did not happen in the winter when there would be other pressures on the NHS. This seems to have underestimated the efficacy of changes in behaviour, notably social distancing. It was key to decision 1 above but the jury is still out. The failure to develop adequate testing capacity and a working contact and trace capacity have had very negative effects both in failing to control the spread of the virus and in making the emergence from lockdown more problematic. The government really got this in mid to late April. It was arguably 2 months late. Rory is right to say that following scientific advice that has not been challenged, tested and put in a bigger picture is not good enough. The lack of scientific literacy in our political class has undoubtedly cost us dear. The quality of that advice has been disappointing but that does not excuse the government, at least not completely.
Very good post. I`d add that, listening to the news this morning and over the last few days, it seems to me that much more energy is being put into criticising past actions, with hindsight and with a vested interest in government-bashing, rather than concentrating efforts on doing the right things going forward, for example getting children back to school.
I agree that criticisms of actions past are largely unproductive at the moment. That said the transition out of lockdown is looking little less than utterly chaotic and carries significant risks. The criticism of lack of scientific literacy in our government applies to the media in spades. They have been truly awful focusing on trivia, dodgy statistics barely understood and meaningless gotchas while there are stories of substance and ineptitude all around them going unreported.
Agreed. Proper journalism died a long time ago on these islands.
If we’re apportioning blame, I’d say:
1. Greedy businesses (Heathrow, airlines, ferry companies, Cheltenham Festival, Nike etc etc etc) 2. Useless journalists and media owners: wouldn’t know their arses from their elbows 3. China 4. Whining, incompetent scientists 5. Politicians
Yes, most politicians are less use than a wet paper bag, but in the scheme of things they are angels compared to the total shits that kept Heathrow going.
To be fair to businesses they're not to know to shutdown if they're not advised to do so. There's a difference between businesses following the advice they're given and businesses trying to circumvent it (like Wetherspoons trying to stay open after the initial avoid pubs advice).
I'd say the problem lies in:
1. Scientists (called this wrong and relied too much on Chinese data) 2. Journalists (useless and insisted on sending political rather than scientific or medical pundits) 3. China (clearly lied but also put the effort in themselves and had no advance notice) 4. Politicians (got it wrong but followed the advice they were seeing) 5. Businesses (followed the advice they were seeing filtered through politicians and media)
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
And the politicians who took their advice. At the end of the day the buck stops with them. Other countries were doing things differently - we need to learn to what extent (if at all) politicians challenged "the science" (sic).
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
Yawn. Back in mid March, the Government was absolutely doing what the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer were telling them to do & at that time SAGE scientists u n a n i m o u s l y opposed Covid suppression measures
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
And the politicians who took their advice. At the end of the day the buck stops with them. Other countries were doing things differently - we need to learn to what extent (if at all) politicians challenged "the science" (sic).
Didn't we have a furore a while back because a political advisor dared to attend a science meeting?
"a 6.5-day mean generation time. Based on fits to the early growth-rate of the epidemic in Wuhan, we make a baseline assumption that R0=2.4 but examine values between 2.0 and 2.6."
This means Ferguson assumed the number of cases were doubling by a factor of 2.4 every 6.5 days. This is equivalent to doubling every 5 days.
In fact, the data from Italy and the UK showed that at the time, cases were doubling every two days. Ferguson was guided by data from Wuhan (which was either misleading or did not apply to European countries).
Ferguson's mistake led the Government to plan for a peak in the Summer. Vallance said on 12th March.
"For the UK, the peak is expected to fall in three months' time, likely in the summer months, and tail off throughout the autumn."
That is why lockdown started late -- the Government had been informed by Ferguson's modelling that the growth was much, much slower than it really was.
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
Excellent post and very clearly explained thank you.
The Brexit/Boris Derangement Sufferers will blame Boris either way - he either ignored the advice or should have known better than to accept it.
Yawn. Back in mid March, the Government was absolutely doing what the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer were telling them to do & at that time SAGE scientists u n a n i m o u s l y opposed Covid suppression measures
Shhhh... you're using facts to contradict The Narrative. And we can't have that.
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
And the politicians who took their advice. At the end of the day the buck stops with them. Other countries were doing things differently - we need to learn to what extent (if at all) politicians challenged "the science" (sic).
Personally without the benefit of hindsight I'd rather our politicians follow the science in a novel pandemic than go against it.
Its one of those things where maybe doing so is wrong but it'll be right more often than not one would hope.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
"a 6.5-day mean generation time. Based on fits to the early growth-rate of the epidemic in Wuhan, we make a baseline assumption that R0=2.4 but examine values between 2.0 and 2.6."
This means Ferguson assumed the number of cases were doubling by a factor of 2.4 every 6.5 days. This is equivalent to doubling every 5 days.
In fact, the data from Italy and the UK showed that at the time, cases were doubling every two days. Ferguson was guided by data from Wuhan (which was either misleading or did not apply to European countries).
Ferguson's mistake led the Government to plan for a peak in the Summer. Vallance said on 12th March.
"For the UK, the peak is expected to fall in three months' time, likely in the summer months, and tail off throughout the autumn."
That is why lockdown started late -- the Government had been informed by Ferguson's modelling that the growth was much, much slower than it really was.
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
Great post. I'm not sure though you can completely link Ferguson's error to delayed lockdown since others models were used etc.
The bit that stands out for me in his summary is the claim that suppression measures would be needed for 18 months (until vaccine) to avoid a rapid resurgence.
That seems to assume we would not learn more about how the virus spreads over time, and therefore be able to target lockdown better.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
Its written by an arse.
The idea that Montgomerie criticising a Tory PM is about as shocking a revelation as Hitchens doing so. Did you sleep through David Cameron's six years of being PM? Montgomerie was hardly a fan of him either.
And I'm confused by you calling Montgomerie a liberal Brexiteer - wasn't he a fan of IDS?
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
And the politicians who took their advice. At the end of the day the buck stops with them. Other countries were doing things differently - we need to learn to what extent (if at all) politicians challenged "the science" (sic).
Personally without the benefit of hindsight I'd rather our politicians follow the science in a novel pandemic than go against it.
Did they ask "why are other countries doing things differently"?
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Just watching Sky and report police want the Baden Powell statue in Poole removed for safe keeping and the incandescent residents rejecting any idea about it being removed
As I have maintained for the last few days a backlash is bubbling under the surface and care needs to be exercised by all sides. Take down slave traders statues and put them in museums with historical facts alongside, but matters are in danger of becoming far too extreme, e.g. when is the Guardian newspaper going to be called out over their historic sins in this field
Probably a silly question but how do top scientists, medics etc get to be appointed Govt advisors? I realise they are very bright people and Ferguson in particular has worked on a lot of very nasty epidemics, but who picks the members of, for example, SAGE.
You get on committees by being on other committees. It's a self-reinforcing process, as well as a full time occupation for those committee members. Not sure they get a lot of time to do any actual research.
It's a 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' problem, and pretty much universal. Non scientist politicians are saying things like 'we are following the best science' when they couldn't speak coherently for two seconds about what science is or how it works, let alone adjudicate what counts as 'best science'.
A sub point is that 'following the science' is meaningless anyway, when all political decisions, unlike pure science has to take both economics and morality into account. Science doesn't do either of those.
This is why I have been saying that the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor could be a government minister. He/she would have to support government policy, not to question it. The other side of the coin is that they would have to take responsibility for all the consequences of their advice, not just the scientific consequences.
A problem for SAGE is that there is not enough accountability. The members of SAGE may be asked to act in the national interest, but there is little to stop them from acting in their own career interests. Maybe SAGE meetings should be broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel, as currently SAGE members have the power to overrule the Prime Minister. SAGE members should not have power without responsibility. SAGE in its current form is undemocratic, and it should be restructured. Having it led by a government minister would be a simple way to do this.
Meanwhile, SAGE members who do not agree with the government's policy should resign from SAGE, or at least from decision-making in SAGE. They should still contribute their views but should not cause SAGE to make recommendations that contradict the government's intentions. Some SAGE members are employed as civil servants, who are expected to implement government policy. Other scientists should agree to support the government before they join SAGE. If members of SAGE contradict the elected government, they should be asked "Who has elected you and who do you represent, other than yourself?". It should be remembered that SAGE members have varied scientific backgrounds, including areas such as climate science. They are not all experts in a field relevant to the current crisis.
Mike Smithson is correct that there is a reckoning coming, but it is coming for the scientists.
And the politicians who took their advice. At the end of the day the buck stops with them. Other countries were doing things differently - we need to learn to what extent (if at all) politicians challenged "the science" (sic).
Personally without the benefit of hindsight I'd rather our politicians follow the science in a novel pandemic than go against it.
Did they ask "why are other countries doing things differently"?
Doesn't look like it.
Looks like they did. Sage was specifically warning other countries were making a mistake that would lead to a second wave that would be more damaging. They said that publicly as well as at Sage.
They were wrong, but the question was asked and answered.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
When a 130-year-old company and mainstay of the FTSE 100 decides that an iconic building on the banks of the Thames, just down from the Houses of Parliament, is no longer viable as its global headquarters, it sums up waning confidence in post-Brexit Britain. Make no mistake, this is a devastating blow for prime minister Theresa May — and only strengthens the hand of the EU in Brexit negotiations. Moving to a single legal entity based in the Netherlands means some jobs will move from the UK and, even if Unilever maintains a listing of its shares on the London Stock Exchange, those shares will disappear from Britain’s blue-chip index — unless a special exemption can be granted. It is yet more self-inflicted economic harm.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
Its written by an arse.
The idea that Montgomerie criticising a Tory PM is about as shocking a revelation as Hitchens doing so. Did you sleep through David Cameron's six years of being PM? Montgomerie was hardly a fan of him either.
And I'm confused by you calling Montgomerie a liberal Brexiteer - wasn't he a fan of IDS?
But Monty is quite nice about Boris; it's Dom who receives the full focus of his ire. I suspect this is being organized by someone on manoeuvres to be next Tory leader. If they can secure Dom's scalp, then that will earn him or her a good few allies from the off. This is the beginning of Boris end of days.
Yawn. Back in mid March, the Government was absolutely doing what the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer were telling them to do & at that time SAGE scientists u n a n i m o u s l y opposed Covid suppression measures
Shhhh... you're using facts to contradict The Narrative. And we can't have that.
Not quite, if you're thinking about the document I think you're thinking of (the 13 March minutes)
The scientists on SAGE unanimously said that suppression of Wave 1 would lead to Wave 2. That's not quite the same; for example Wave 1 suppression could still be a good idea if it gave time to sort out other measures.
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
Mr. Cwsc, thanks very much for posting that concise and clear explanation on Ferguson's model.
It is slightly depressing that the media are just lapping up his line despite the obvious undertone of "Why did the Government listen to me and my inaccurate predictions?".
There's a lot to criticise them over, but condemning them for listening to expert advice especially when it's an adviser criticising them is just dumb.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
Its written by an arse.
The idea that Montgomerie criticising a Tory PM is about as shocking a revelation as Hitchens doing so. Did you sleep through David Cameron's six years of being PM? Montgomerie was hardly a fan of him either.
And I'm confused by you calling Montgomerie a liberal Brexiteer - wasn't he a fan of IDS?
Thanks for the interesting comment on the content of the article and the substance of the argument - most helpful. Now I know he is an arse I can ignore what he writes.
By liberal I meant he is socially liberal - e.g. was always pro gay marriage etc.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
If the health impacts of this continue on an improving trajectory - which I appreciate is a not-insignificant 'if' - the reckoning in 2024 will be more on the handling of the economy.
For all the chuntering now, the question of locking down a few days' earlier or supply of PPE will feel a bit vague by then. Even now, look how the Cummings row dissipated after a week of nerve-holding at Number 10.
Another key factor will be Johnson's general air of competence/lack thereof and consequent dodging of scrutiny. It was seemingly accepted wisdom that the blustering focus on broad brush stuff was the charming punter-friendly face of a ruthlessly-efficient operation. He still pulls that off in the set pieces (eg the TV addresses). But his performance at press conferences and PMQs, especially now his Commons opponent has some ability and self-discipline, is shocking.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
Its written by an arse.
The idea that Montgomerie criticising a Tory PM is about as shocking a revelation as Hitchens doing so. Did you sleep through David Cameron's six years of being PM? Montgomerie was hardly a fan of him either.
And I'm confused by you calling Montgomerie a liberal Brexiteer - wasn't he a fan of IDS?
Thanks for the interesting comment on the content of the article and the substance of the argument - most helpful. Now I know he is an arse I can ignore what he writes.
By liberal I meant he is socially liberal - e.g. was always pro gay marriage etc.
I didn't comment on the article, since I didn't read the article.
I commented on your post and your comments since that's what was posted here and what I read.
Fair play to Montgomerie if he was pro-equal marriage though.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
When a 130-year-old company and mainstay of the FTSE 100 decides that an iconic building on the banks of the Thames, just down from the Houses of Parliament, is no longer viable as its global headquarters, it sums up waning confidence in post-Brexit Britain. Make no mistake, this is a devastating blow for prime minister Theresa May — and only strengthens the hand of the EU in Brexit negotiations. Moving to a single legal entity based in the Netherlands means some jobs will move from the UK and, even if Unilever maintains a listing of its shares on the London Stock Exchange, those shares will disappear from Britain’s blue-chip index — unless a special exemption can be granted. It is yet more self-inflicted economic harm.
What's interesting is that there's been no fanfare this time. Last time the board made a huge deal out of it and essentially blamed leave voters for their decision to leave the UK and shareholders to yet to be won over. Now it's just a press release with conditions already agreed with the Dutch.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Perhaps the time for anything to be thought of as permanent has gone?
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
What's interesting is that there's been no fanfare this time. Last time the board made a huge deal out of it and essentially blamed leave voters for their decision to leave the UK and shareholders to yet to be won over. Now it's just a press release with conditions already agreed with the Dutch.
I think that's the key though. This time it looks like the shareholders won.
If they left, the city would have crippled the company, so they stay.
Mistakes were made at the start by other countries as well as the UK, eg France, leading to large numbers of excess deaths. The issue now for the government is the slow and chaotic exit from the epidemic that the UK is going through alone amongst European nations, it seems. Despite lockdown, the infection rates are falling much more slowly in the UK and are currently three times higher than Italy and Spain, four times higher than France and eight times higher than Germany. Those countries are in a much better place to extract themselves from lockdown and return to normal.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
You are aware that
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
I certainly don't want to get embroiled in an argument with you and BluestBlue because it wold be lengthy and really dull. But I assume neither of you have any comment on the substance of Montgomerie's article rather than its author.
The fury from Conservatives when Rory Stewart made this intervention was tangible. Jeremy Hunt fared no better. There are many on this site who could usefully examine their consciences.
Of course, we now know Boris Johnson bunked off for half of February so that he could relax with his fiancée, just as the storm clouds were gathering. Normally when a captain deserts his post, he is relieved of command. The Conservatives, however, would rather ignore tens of thousands of avoidable deaths than admit any failure on their part.
The first cases had already arrived in the UK by the time Boris took off for the last 2 weeks of February to sort out his personal life. We never got on the front foot from that point on. A critical 2 weeks when we should have been getting ahead of the game wasted.
The Tory members knew what sort of person they were choosing to run the country but didn't care as long he kept saying Brexit. We are now paying the price for their stupidity.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
Dead wrong. Surely even you will agree that when Horace writes "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" he is taking the bronze statue as the paradigm case of permanence. Statues come down in earthquakes, but not otherwise; except very occasionally at the hands of iconoclasts like the Cromwellians and the Taliban, invariably judged by history as absolute arsewipes.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
And yet Dom's not going. Despite having been the centre of what someone amusing called 'the biggest news story in the last 100 years'. Who was the comic genius who said that? I forget.
That seems a bit unfair. It was the Imperial model that pushed UK into lock down by showing that things were going to be much more severe than the previous modelling indicated. So what if the Imperial model was based on an over-optimistic assumption? (5-6 day doubling) The model output was still shocking enough to change course.
If the Imperial model, with the wrong doubling time, had suggested the soft restrictions approach was fine, then there would be an issue. It may well have been wise not to come back to the government with a revised estimate when the original was dire enough to make the point and they probably weren't certain of the doubling time at that point - it's a bit hard to pick out as you're not sure what's community transmission (which you need to work out the doubling time and what's incoming cases).
On my understanding the Imperial model got the characteristics of the disease basically right. Ferguson and SAGE, it appears, underestimated the effectiveness of lockdown as a containment measure, and that you could really get through the epidemic, at least in the first wave with thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of fatalities.
The Ferguson/Imperial model predicted a few tens of thousands of deaths (up to about 50k, most scenarios lower) under full lock down, so if anything they overestimated what a lockdown could do - although if lock down applied at the point the report was published, rather than a little later, the estimates were probably pretty good.
I saw an interview with Prof Ferguson early on in the epidemic (maybe end Feb?) where he was quite dismissive of the effectiveness of social distancing in reducing the death toll. The SAGE minutes also don't seem to be particularly confident. My guess is that the thinking changed and they started suggesting a possible 20 000 figure. I am not sure if the model changed or full lockdown became politically acceptable and so they considered it seriously for the first time.
I didn't see that. Figures I quoted are from the March 16 report (the one that led to lock down). As I recall, the earlier modelling that suggested this could be handled without lock down was not from Imperial. If Ferguson was criticising effectiveness of social distancing (i.e. short of a lock down) then he's probably been consistent (although possibly not right as social distancing, early enough, may have been enough). Anyway, I haven't seen the interview, so my interpretation might all be wrong.
I seem to recall a discussion on this in the dim & distant pst, where lockdown was ruled out 'because the British would never stand for it'. To be fair I think that was in a 'scientific' rather than a 'political' discussion.
If anyone has a link to that I'd like to see it - I'm not skeptical that it happened, but I missed it at the time (my then 8 week old daughter was in hospital with a coronavirus - not SARS-CoV-2! - in early March so I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to the outside world at that point)
In an novel pandemic that causes anywhere up to a 1% fatality rate (more if health services are overwhelmed), 20,000 excess deaths out of a population of 66 million is sadly well within the envelope of possible outcomes, and far lower than many of the projections that circulated at the time. I seem to recall that 500,000 was the reasonable worst case calculated by Ferguson and independently by Chris Whitty.
As is now obvious, lockdown is sending whole nations insane and crippling their economies at the same time, so it's hardly unreasonable that the government was reticent to take such an unprecedented step.
Most people don't demand perfect levels of foresight from their leaders in unprecedented circumstances. I have no doubt that whenever we locked down, the same political opponents of Boris Johnson would be saying 'Well, if we'd locked down a few days earlier, we'd have saved X more lives...'
UnbelievabIy, many still haven`t grasped the seriousness of the situation. I`m still talking to people who think that businesses are going to be up and running like before as if by magic.
Honestly looking at what the Bank of England predict, it basically is that everything will be up and running like magic next year.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
I'm minded to cut the scientists *and* politicians quite a bit of slack in their early actions.
Given the normal speed of medical research (and government action), they were shooting in the dark at a moving target.
I think the generic pandemic preparations (eg response to Cygnus) were lacking, and austerity had left a hollow shell where local emergency planning and public health departments used to be.
But interpreting weeks of dodgy data from China, fewer weeks of better data from Italy and making epoch-defining public policy decisions off the back of it was always going to be a big ask. And we should be wary of calling "u-turn" when policy changes based on changing evidence or progression along the curve.
To be clear, however, that definitively does not equate to "the press should lay off Boris, he's doing his best". Given those variables, the alternative viewpoints need airing, and his testing against them very robustly. His inability to articulate a clear message in those circumstances is not a selling point.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
As I understand it Cummings does not want a no deal and the two sides falling out are both leavers.
Many leave conservatives want Cummings out
I want him out as he has acted in a disgraceful way in not resigning and if Boris goes as well that is a bonus
I can't believe, really can't believe (Not using that as a figure of speech) that the Tories would allow themselves to be bribed for such a massive contract for £12,000. If that's the going rate then companies up and down the land will be aching to give away such paltry sums to allow pp for decent contracts !
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
Is there anything in the scientific advice about the consequences of lockdown? It's only halftime and the next few years could be pretty grim. Was part of the calculation that you only want to use lockdown as a last resort?
I can't believe, really can't believe (Not using that as a figure of speech) that the Tories would allow themselves to be bribed for such a massive contract for £12,000. If that's the going rate then companies up and down the land will be aching to give away such paltry sums to allow pp for decent contracts !
Apparently the minister didn't know the guy at a fundraiser was a donor...
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
And yet Dom's not going. Despite having been the centre of what someone amusing called 'the biggest news story in the last 100 years'. Who was the comic genius who said that? I forget.
But if you look at the damage he has inflicted on Johnson's and the party's reputation and polling it's a bit hard to see what your point is; yippee, he's still there to make things even worse?
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
Dead wrong. Surely even you will agree that when Horace writes "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" he is taking the bronze statue as the paradigm case of permanence. Statues come down in earthquakes, but not otherwise; except very occasionally at the hands of iconoclasts like the Cromwellians and the Taliban, invariably judged by history as absolute arsewipes.
Taken together with your earlier ingenious 'compromise', you're forcing me to like you again. As a side note though, I think I might perhaps be more distraught if the works of Horace were permanently expunged than if all the world's statues were taken down, incalculable though both losses would be. Am I strange?
p.s. Let's not tussle over irrelevances like Cummings.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
I agree "scientists advise, politicians decide". But it would be the easiest job in the world for SAGE to say "everyone stays in their own bedroom for a month from tomorrow and lives off pre-packed sarnies delivered by the army in full PPE" - and probably have a strong argument this would do the trick, virus-wise. So they need to pitch their assessment somewhere in the real world.
Also, "the science" being followed includes the effect on mental health, behavioural aspects - and even the economic stuff (if you indulge economists the status of scientists ). It's not just the epidemiology.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
And yet Dom's not going. Despite having been the centre of what someone amusing called 'the biggest news story in the last 100 years'. Who was the comic genius who said that? I forget.
I'm not going through my 'biggest political story in 100 years' theory again. I've put it up for rebuttal umpteen times on here and every time the responses have been vacuous. I therefore regard it as irrefutable. As for Monty: as a Boris admirer, you have to ask yourself whether he is a lone wolf or there are more organized forces at play. I strongly suspect the latter.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
You are aware that
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
The shareholders have already been bought off with promises to the Dutch government.
The dual listing structure will stay in place until the spin off is done.
The main change is that Unilever is basically calling time on the low margin, low growth food product business and shifting investment over to personal care/grooming which forms the main bulk of the UK business, 18 months ago this was still true but the board were determined to move the whole business to the Netherlands. Now the UK keeps its fast growing personal care division and until there is a decision made on a spin off it manages the food products division as well.
As I said, it's a huge win for the UK, just as 18 months ago it was rightly pointed out that the opposite decision was a huge loss. To pretend otherwise shows how blatantly obvious your EU good, UK bad agenda is.
I can't believe, really can't believe (Not using that as a figure of speech) that the Tories would allow themselves to be bribed for such a massive contract for £12,000. If that's the going rate then companies up and down the land will be aching to give away such paltry sums to allow pp for decent contracts !
£12,000 for planning permission -- yes, that is ludicrous. £12,000 for dinner with the minister -- that's normal party fundraising.
ETA and iirc this was raised here a week or two back. Maybe Boris should join to find out what sticky questions will be raised in the House.
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
Dead wrong. Surely even you will agree that when Horace writes "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" he is taking the bronze statue as the paradigm case of permanence. Statues come down in earthquakes, but not otherwise; except very occasionally at the hands of iconoclasts like the Cromwellians and the Taliban, invariably judged by history as absolute arsewipes.
Aren't statues a kind of worship of false Gods anyway? All humans are fallible (maybe not George Floyd), maybe that's reason enough to not have any
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
No, I think its because SAGE includes behavioural scientists on it. If the behavioural scientists don't believe the public will follow instructions for long, that's due to them studying the public not due to criticisms of science.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
You are aware that
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
The shareholders have already been bought off with promises to the Dutch government.
The dual listing structure will stay in place until the spin off is done.
The main change is that Unilever is basically calling time on the low margin, low growth food product business and shifting investment over to personal care/grooming which forms the main bulk of the UK business, 18 months ago this was still true but the board were determined to move the whole business to the Netherlands. Now the UK keeps its fast growing personal care division and until there is a decision made on a spin off it manages the food products division as well.
As I said, it's a huge win for the UK, just as 18 months ago it was rightly pointed out that the opposite decision was a huge loss. To pretend otherwise shows how blatantly obvious your EU good, UK bad agenda is.
I think you'll find you're the one spinning it. I'm just pointing out that the change itself is net flat for both sides of the business and clearly an attempt to steamline having two businesses in two geographic locations. Moving it all to Rotterdam didn't work, moving it all to London won't either. The outcome will still be two businesses in two geographical locations.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
And yet Dom's not going. Despite having been the centre of what someone amusing called 'the biggest news story in the last 100 years'. Who was the comic genius who said that? I forget.
But if you look at the damage he has inflicted on Johnson's and the party's reputation and polling it's a bit hard to see what your point is; yippee, he's still there to make things even worse?
Lol! Not often you see someone skewered on the logic of their own argument, but he managed it. The post should be preserved as a warning to all.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
You are aware that
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
The shareholders have already been bought off with promises to the Dutch government.
The dual listing structure will stay in place until the spin off is done.
The main change is that Unilever is basically calling time on the low margin, low growth food product business and shifting investment over to personal care/grooming which forms the main bulk of the UK business, 18 months ago this was still true but the board were determined to move the whole business to the Netherlands. Now the UK keeps its fast growing personal care division and until there is a decision made on a spin off it manages the food products division as well.
As I said, it's a huge win for the UK, just as 18 months ago it was rightly pointed out that the opposite decision was a huge loss. To pretend otherwise shows how blatantly obvious your EU good, UK bad agenda is.
I think you'll find you're the one spinning it. I'm just pointing out that the change itself is net flat for both sides of the business and clearly an attempt to steamline having two businesses in two geographic locations. Moving it all to Rotterdam didn't work, moving it all to London won't either. The outcome will still be two businesses in two geographical locations.
So if it does go ahead then you're prepared to admit you made an error in judgement and that it is good for London and the UK?
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
I can't believe, really can't believe (Not using that as a figure of speech) that the Tories would allow themselves to be bribed for such a massive contract for £12,000. If that's the going rate then companies up and down the land will be aching to give away such paltry sums to allow pp for decent contracts !
Apparently the minister didn't know the guy at a fundraiser was a donor...
That could be true but it's a sad indictment of Boris's Cabinet that a minister at a party fundraiser did not realise the guests donated to party funds.
Tim Montgomerie's devastating hatchet job on Boris has been mentioned above, but I don't think it has been given enough attention; it's well worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself. But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home. It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The Tim Montgomerie who worked as a Downing Street adviser for a grand total of 3 months before being unceremoniously sacked for his lavish praise of Viktor Orban?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
He praised Orban?
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
Boris had Monty on his team. Of course, Monty's merits are somewhat irrelevant. The question is, why has he decided to launch this broadside against Dom now? I suspects elements within the Tory part believe that Dom is hanging by a thread. Once Dom goes, the forlorn and weakened Boris is ready to be culled too.
And yet Dom's not going. Despite having been the centre of what someone amusing called 'the biggest news story in the last 100 years'. Who was the comic genius who said that? I forget.
But if you look at the damage he has inflicted on Johnson's and the party's reputation and polling it's a bit hard to see what your point is; yippee, he's still there to make things even worse?
Lol! Not often you see someone skewered on the logic of their own argument, but he managed it. The post should be preserved as a warning to all.
Not really since BluestBlue never said that Dom not going is going to make things worse, and he was mocking the "comic genius" who said preposterously that Dom's travails were "the biggest news story in the last 100 years".
The public will move on and forget Dom just as the public moved on and forgot about Boris accepting a million pounds (not £12,000) from Bernie Ecclestone.
Please don't think this question is rhetorical or that I know the answer, because I don't. Did Jenrick personally grant pp ?
Housing secretary Robert Jenrick gave the go-ahead to a contentious redevelopment project in London just weeks after he was lobbied by the businessman behind the £1bn scheme at a Conservative party fundraising dinner.
Mr Jenrick approved the planning application for the redevelopment of Westferry Printworks in London’s Docklands in January despite advice from the independent Planning Inspectorate and the local council that the proposals did not contain sufficient affordable housing.
But interpreting weeks of dodgy data from China, fewer weeks of better data from Italy and making epoch-defining public policy decisions off the back of it was always going to be a big ask. And we should be wary of calling "u-turn" when policy changes based on changing evidence or progression along the curve.
No.
Ferguson could & should have compared his model predictions with data on the actual number of infections in the UK. That is the bread & butter of science.
He could & should have been able to see quickly that his model was wrong.
By April 1, Ferguson's model predicted 50 daily death. On April 1, there were 670 actual deaths. Ferguson's model was out by over an order of magnitude.
Even by March 25th, the actual deaths were 186, Ferguson's prediction was under 10. He was out by an order off magnitude even within a week of his model being published.
Any competent scientist should have been able to criticise his model -- and see it was wrong.
The scientists who should have been doing the criticism are all the members of SAGE.
I know some of them, and it pains me to say it, but they are all guilty.
Because what I am suggesting is very simple.
You do not need to understand how a mathematical model is built to see whether it is wrong. You just need to be able to compare the predictions with the data.
Anyone with basic scientific training should have been able to see Ferguson's model was wrong with days of its publication.
Fortunately for Ferguson, there is no journalist able to do this.
But I suspect that the inquiry that is coming will be able to pin the mistakes to him.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
In other despite Brexit news, Unilever abandons the Netherlands HQ and relocates to be fully run from the UK. No material change in job locations but it does spell long term doom for the food products business being run our of the Netherlands.
Interestingly 18 months ago the CEO got sacked for trying to do the opposite.
Well firstly they need to try and get the shareholders to agree to the same thing they rejected last year.
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
Yes what it means is that the faster growing personal grooming/care business is a UK company going forwards 18 months ago that was not on the table. This is a huge get for London and the UK and a loss for the Netherlands. Unilever is pumping investment into the side of the business that is staying in the UK.
Despite Brexit.
You are aware that
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
The shareholders have already been bought off with promises to the Dutch government.
The dual listing structure will stay in place until the spin off is done.
The main change is that Unilever is basically calling time on the low margin, low growth food product business and shifting investment over to personal care/grooming which forms the main bulk of the UK business, 18 months ago this was still true but the board were determined to move the whole business to the Netherlands. Now the UK keeps its fast growing personal care division and until there is a decision made on a spin off it manages the food products division as well.
As I said, it's a huge win for the UK, just as 18 months ago it was rightly pointed out that the opposite decision was a huge loss. To pretend otherwise shows how blatantly obvious your EU good, UK bad agenda is.
I think you'll find you're the one spinning it. I'm just pointing out that the change itself is net flat for both sides of the business and clearly an attempt to steamline having two businesses in two geographic locations. Moving it all to Rotterdam didn't work, moving it all to London won't either. The outcome will still be two businesses in two geographical locations.
So if it does go ahead then you're prepared to admit you made an error in judgement and that it is good for London and the UK?
I'm saying its net flat if it goes ahead becuase half the business stays in the Netherlands. Its not bad or good: its a restructure.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
No, I think its because SAGE includes behavioural scientists on it. If the behavioural scientists don't believe the public will follow instructions for long, that's due to them studying the public not due to criticisms of science.
That argument doesn't make logical sense, though. If you lockdown earlier you don't need to lockdown for as long because the peak infection rate will be lower and so it takes less time to reduce it to a manageable level.
Now, because of our failure to act earlier the public is expected to change behaviour indefinitely in order to "live with" the virus. This is logically inconsistent.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
Dead wrong. Surely even you will agree that when Horace writes "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" he is taking the bronze statue as the paradigm case of permanence. Statues come down in earthquakes, but not otherwise; except very occasionally at the hands of iconoclasts like the Cromwellians and the Taliban, invariably judged by history as absolute arsewipes.
Aren't statues a kind of worship of false Gods anyway? All humans are fallible (maybe not George Floyd), maybe that's reason enough to not have any
I think they record, rather than worship. I feel exactly equally strongly that statues of Charles I and statues of Oliver Cromwell should be left where they are.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Everyone remember the hoo ha about Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi being released from prison because he only had 3 months supposedly to live - well............
Sikora's report concluded that Megrahi had only three months to live due to terminal prostate cancer. In fact, Megrahi died on 20 May 2012, two years and nine months after his release.
Breeding animals in order to kill and eat them could be the slave trade of the 21st Century, and we are nearly all complicit. If it's not that it will be something else
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
So let's become a land without statues, because what's the point of erecting the things if they are coming down again in 50 years time? Baden-Powell has gone in Poole this morning, no great loss, but Drake is under threat in Tavistock and Plymouth. Personally I quite like towns to have statues, irrespective of identity.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
Statues aren't eternal. What goes up eventually comes down and repeatedly has in the past.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
Dead wrong. Surely even you will agree that when Horace writes "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" he is taking the bronze statue as the paradigm case of permanence. Statues come down in earthquakes, but not otherwise; except very occasionally at the hands of iconoclasts like the Cromwellians and the Taliban, invariably judged by history as absolute arsewipes.
No you're dead wrong.
Statues are moved around, put into storage, put up and taken back down routinely. It happens all the time already, just with less attention normally.
The statue that Khan has put into storage in London spent over 50 years in storage already.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
Why do you opine that? Outside Lombardia, Italy got off pretty lightly.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Clearly it's knocking off years from many people's lives. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this is part of the calculation. I can guarantee that had this been killing children, the response would have bee a lot different with or without government intervention.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
I was talking to Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't know much about haggis-themed poetry.
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...
Comments
Secondly, as this FT article demonstrates, Unilver have assured the Dutch government that any spin-off of the foods and refreshment divisions from the group would result in a separate Dutch based and listed group.
https://www.ft.com/content/ffbe3980-ff77-43bf-8ba3-169a87cb0824
I'd say the problem lies in:
1. Scientists (called this wrong and relied too much on Chinese data)
2. Journalists (useless and insisted on sending political rather than scientific or medical pundits)
3. China (clearly lied but also put the effort in themselves and had no advance notice)
4. Politicians (got it wrong but followed the advice they were seeing)
5. Businesses (followed the advice they were seeing filtered through politicians and media)
Maybe we can stop wasting time and cancel everyone who didn't support gay marriage 25 years ago?
If they haven't learned anything from the current goings on, in a couple of hundred years people could be trashing almost every one alive today whom we think of as worthy, whilst making heroes of contemporary law breakers.
Its one of those things where maybe doing so is wrong but it'll be right more often than not one would hope.
We can learn lessons for the future though.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson
It articulates well what many opponents of the government, and of Boris, think about the current shambles - I couldn't have expressed it better myself.
But it is written by a true Tory loyalist, a fan of Boris until recently, a (liberal) Brexiteer, ex-editor of Conservative Home.
It strikes me as expressing the first serious fissure in the Tory ranks, and articulates the growing doubts that many Tories seem to have about BJ's capacity to govern effectively. Trouble ahead, methinks.
The bit that stands out for me in his summary is the claim that suppression measures would be needed for 18 months (until vaccine) to avoid a rapid resurgence.
That seems to assume we would not learn more about how the virus spreads over time, and therefore be able to target lockdown better.
Despite Brexit.
The idea that Montgomerie criticising a Tory PM is about as shocking a revelation as Hitchens doing so. Did you sleep through David Cameron's six years of being PM? Montgomerie was hardly a fan of him either.
And I'm confused by you calling Montgomerie a liberal Brexiteer - wasn't he a fan of IDS?
Doesn't look like it.
Perhaps we can compromise: statues are allowed, provided they consist of a representation of George Floyd reclining on a pile of cocaine, pointing a shotgun at a young, pregnant and terrified black woman.
As I have maintained for the last few days a backlash is bubbling under the surface and care needs to be exercised by all sides. Take down slave traders statues and put them in museums with historical facts alongside, but matters are in danger of becoming far too extreme, e.g. when is the Guardian newspaper going to be called out over their historic sins in this field
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/06/undeserved-praise-or-thoughts-on-not-taking-the-butttock-at-the-rhodes-must-fall-demonstration-in-ox.html
A problem for SAGE is that there is not enough accountability. The members of SAGE may be asked to act in the national interest, but there is little to stop them from acting in their own career interests. Maybe SAGE meetings should be broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel, as currently SAGE members have the power to overrule the Prime Minister. SAGE members should not have power without responsibility. SAGE in its current form is undemocratic, and it should be restructured. Having it led by a government minister would be a simple way to do this.
Meanwhile, SAGE members who do not agree with the government's policy should resign from SAGE, or at least from decision-making in SAGE. They should still contribute their views but should not cause SAGE to make recommendations that contradict the government's intentions. Some SAGE members are employed as civil servants, who are expected to implement government policy. Other scientists should agree to support the government before they join SAGE. If members of SAGE contradict the elected government, they should be asked "Who has elected you and who do you represent, other than yourself?". It should be remembered that SAGE members have varied scientific backgrounds, including areas such as climate science. They are not all experts in a field relevant to the current crisis.
They were wrong, but the question was asked and answered.
https://www.ft.com/content/4fcd127c-282e-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0
The scientists on SAGE unanimously said that suppression of Wave 1 would lead to Wave 2. That's not quite the same; for example Wave 1 suppression could still be a good idea if it gave time to sort out other measures.
The question isn't what was put up in the past but what do we want on our plinths in the present. We can put whatever we want on them now and if the future disagrees with us they can take it down.
How is that complicated?
https://www.ft.com/content/dd01e0b2-30d5-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2
That Tim Montgomerie?
The 'true Tory loyalist' who publicly deserted the Tories to vote BXP a year ago?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/are-conservative-members-who-endorse-the-brexit-party-at-risk-of-expulsion-farage-european-elections
That Tim Montgomerie?
And now trying to make himself relevant again in the New Statesman? That's some totally unbiased and reliable source you've got there...
It is slightly depressing that the media are just lapping up his line despite the obvious undertone of "Why did the Government listen to me and my inaccurate predictions?".
There's a lot to criticise them over, but condemning them for listening to expert advice especially when it's an adviser criticising them is just dumb.
By liberal I meant he is socially liberal - e.g. was always pro gay marriage etc.
I knew he was a fan of IDS, but I didn't realise Orban too. What next, Trump?
And @Northern_Al had the barefaced cheek to describe him as liberal? WTAF?
For all the chuntering now, the question of locking down a few days' earlier or supply of PPE will feel a bit vague by then. Even now, look how the Cummings row dissipated after a week of nerve-holding at Number 10.
Another key factor will be Johnson's general air of competence/lack thereof and consequent dodging of scrutiny. It was seemingly accepted wisdom that the blustering focus on broad brush stuff was the charming punter-friendly face of a ruthlessly-efficient operation. He still pulls that off in the set pieces (eg the TV addresses). But his performance at press conferences and PMQs, especially now his Commons opponent has some ability and self-discipline, is shocking.
I commented on your post and your comments since that's what was posted here and what I read.
Fair play to Montgomerie if he was pro-equal marriage though.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
If they left, the city would have crippled the company, so they stay.
The impact of Brexit is yet to be determined.
Cheers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-52990013
We'll see what happens.
a) this hasn't happened yet and still requires the 55% of shareholders who are in the NV company to agree and that
b) the joint listing will remain.
The net movement is zero. It is better than the headquarters moving to Rotterdam and the entity de-listing but combined with the liklihood of the entity spinning out into separate groups in due course the actual impact to the UK is negligible.
But I assume neither of you have any comment on the substance of Montgomerie's article rather than its author.
The Tory members knew what sort of person they were choosing to run the country but didn't care as long he kept saying Brexit. We are now paying the price for their stupidity.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
Given the normal speed of medical research (and government action), they were shooting in the dark at a moving target.
I think the generic pandemic preparations (eg response to Cygnus) were lacking, and austerity had left a hollow shell where local emergency planning and public health departments used to be.
But interpreting weeks of dodgy data from China, fewer weeks of better data from Italy and making epoch-defining public policy decisions off the back of it was always going to be a big ask. And we should be wary of calling "u-turn" when policy changes based on changing evidence or progression along the curve.
To be clear, however, that definitively does not equate to "the press should lay off Boris, he's doing his best". Given those variables, the alternative viewpoints need airing, and his testing against them very robustly. His inability to articulate a clear message in those circumstances is not a selling point.
Many leave conservatives want Cummings out
I want him out as he has acted in a disgraceful way in not resigning and if Boris goes as well that is a bonus
I can't believe, really can't believe (Not using that as a figure of speech) that the Tories would allow themselves to be bribed for such a massive contract for £12,000. If that's the going rate then companies up and down the land will be aching to give away such paltry sums to allow pp for decent contracts !
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1271017317292544000
p.s. Let's not tussle over irrelevances like Cummings.
Also, "the science" being followed includes the effect on mental health, behavioural aspects - and even the economic stuff (if you indulge economists the status of scientists
The dual listing structure will stay in place until the spin off is done.
The main change is that Unilever is basically calling time on the low margin, low growth food product business and shifting investment over to personal care/grooming which forms the main bulk of the UK business, 18 months ago this was still true but the board were determined to move the whole business to the Netherlands. Now the UK keeps its fast growing personal care division and until there is a decision made on a spin off it manages the food products division as well.
As I said, it's a huge win for the UK, just as 18 months ago it was rightly pointed out that the opposite decision was a huge loss. To pretend otherwise shows how blatantly obvious your EU good, UK bad agenda is.
£12,000 for dinner with the minister -- that's normal party fundraising.
ETA and iirc this was raised here a week or two back. Maybe Boris should join to find out what sticky questions will be raised in the House.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1270998047892307968?s=19
Did Jenrick personally grant pp ?
The public will move on and forget Dom just as the public moved on and forgot about Boris accepting a million pounds (not £12,000) from Bernie Ecclestone.
Housing secretary Robert Jenrick gave the go-ahead to a contentious redevelopment project in London just weeks after he was lobbied by the businessman behind the £1bn scheme at a Conservative party fundraising dinner.
Mr Jenrick approved the planning application for the redevelopment of Westferry Printworks in London’s Docklands in January despite advice from the independent Planning Inspectorate and the local council that the proposals did not contain sufficient affordable housing.
https://www.ft.com/content/83013fd9-3efd-4664-bc6b-2e72281302ce
Ferguson could & should have compared his model predictions with data on the actual number of infections in the UK. That is the bread & butter of science.
He could & should have been able to see quickly that his model was wrong.
By April 1, Ferguson's model predicted 50 daily death. On April 1, there were 670 actual deaths. Ferguson's model was out by over an order of magnitude.
Even by March 25th, the actual deaths were 186, Ferguson's prediction was under 10. He was out by an order off magnitude even within a week of his model being published.
Any competent scientist should have been able to criticise his model -- and see it was wrong.
The scientists who should have been doing the criticism are all the members of SAGE.
I know some of them, and it pains me to say it, but they are all guilty.
Because what I am suggesting is very simple.
You do not need to understand how a mathematical model is built to see whether it is wrong. You just need to be able to compare the predictions with the data.
Anyone with basic scientific training should have been able to see Ferguson's model was wrong with days of its publication.
Fortunately for Ferguson, there is no journalist able to do this.
But I suspect that the inquiry that is coming will be able to pin the mistakes to him.
Now, because of our failure to act earlier the public is expected to change behaviour indefinitely in order to "live with" the virus. This is logically inconsistent.
Gandhi has made the statue-haters target list.
Sikora's report concluded that Megrahi had only three months to live due to terminal prostate cancer. In fact, Megrahi died on 20 May 2012, two years and nine months after his release.
Statues are moved around, put into storage, put up and taken back down routinely. It happens all the time already, just with less attention normally.
The statue that Khan has put into storage in London spent over 50 years in storage already.
No one is going to fall for this one.
https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1246866119597621248?s=09
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinapril2020
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...