I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.
How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons
IIRC Italian neo-fascists made a serious bid to overthrow the government in the 60s, but so many got cold feet and failed to turn out that it was abandoned. The Italian authorities didn’t even learn it had been attempted until some months later.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.
Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.
That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.
Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.
I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?
What is the alternative? Letting it rip would put the NHS out of commission for everything including C19 unless you flat out refused to treat anyone with it. I’m not sure of the proportion, but I expect the IFR of about 1% is only possible with best treatment: there are a lot more sick people who would die without it.
Some of the worst hit parts of the US are beginning to see health services crack: ICU rates well over 100% (i.e. regular beds being pressed into service as overflow) and even reports of non-Covid fatalities due to being able to get emergency treatment in time.
Not healthy that an election loser has the power to lash out like this.
Can't Twitter trust the reader to judge whether or not a statement might be disputed? I tend to assume that any statement on Twitter is disputed anyway.
Yep, if the last few years have proved anything, it's that the average consumer of social media invariably treats it with a blend of cool detachment and analytical scepticism.
I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.
How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons
FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:
What happens next?
Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.
Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?
Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.
No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:
Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.
The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.
And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.
Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election
Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'
The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.
I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?
All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?
Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?
Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.
Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.
How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.
I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.
I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.
One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.
Trump doesn't need the ECVs to be awarded to him.
All he needs is to stop Biden getting 270.
The result should be 306-232. If 37 Biden ECVs get voided then it's 269-232 - in that situation Biden does not win - it goes to the House of Representatives.
The House? That has a Dem majority.
But I think by that time it would be getting pretty frisky on the streets.
No.
The House votes on the basis of State delegations - each State delegation gets one vote.
The Republicans have a majority of State delegations I'm afraid.
And yes, I'm sure it will get very frisky on the streets.
FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:
What happens next?
Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.
Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?
Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.
No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:
Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.
The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.
And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.
Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election
Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'
The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.
I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?
All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?
Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?
Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.
Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.
How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.
I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.
I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.
One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.
Trump doesn't need the ECVs to be awarded to him.
All he needs is to stop Biden getting 270.
The result should be 306-232. If 37 Biden ECVs get voided then it's 269-232 - in that situation Biden does not win - it goes to the House of Representatives.
The House? That has a Dem majority.
But I think by that time it would be getting pretty frisky on the streets.
No.
The House votes on the basis of State delegations - each State delegation gets one vote.
The Republicans have a majority of State delegations I'm afraid.
And yes, I'm sure it will get very frisky on the streets.
The US would become seen as a failed state . I doubt that Trump would be recognised as the legitimate leader by the Western world.
There is not a great deal the Western world could do about an American coup d'etat.
But the USA would cease to be seen as a democracy - no different to China.It is unlikely to come to that in that I seem to recall that the decision of the Electoral College has to be approved by a combined session of Congress in January. Normally that is but a rubber stamp, but under these circumstances that would not be so. The Democrats would be joined by Republicans such as Romney, Sasse and Collins in blocking such an attempt by Trump to usurp normal process.
That is the danger, the loss of authority. Doubtless Russia and China will already be pointing to the dangers and weaknesses of liberal democracy.
They always did, and the former already suggested US democracy was a sham I think. Now it looks more credible as not just Trump but most Republucans say the same thing.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
Fanatical primary voters.
Fairy nuff. But here's another theory.
Early in his Presidency he visits Vladimir Putin. He speaks to him alone, no officials present, just Vlad's translator. Vlad asks him what he needs. Trump says he needs some dirt on his critics in the Republican Party so he can keep them in line. Vlad offers him the services of the KGB and access to the files they keep on all prominent politicians. Donald says 'that'll do nicely'. What does Vlad want in return?
- Sow divisions in American society - Damage trust in American democracy - Reduce American influence/security in Middle East - Kneecap NATO
A deal is done.
Fanciful?
Slightly. I'd guess that political opposition research in the US is likely superior to most information Russian intelligence might have, but the idea isn't impossible.
And I wouldn't entirely dismiss the theory that Trump is a Russian agent of influence, as he certainly has behaved, and continues to behave like one. The far more parsimonious explanation, though, is that he's just a raging narcissist and sociopath.
I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.
How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons
I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.
How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons
Or the one involving Mark Thatcher
What about the anti-Wilson one?
As depicted on The Crown? Insofar as that shows real history, which isnt that far.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
Fanatical primary voters.
Fairy nuff. But here's another theory.
Early in his Presidency he visits Vladimir Putin. He speaks to him alone, no officials present, just Vlad's translator. Vlad asks him what he needs. Trump says he needs some dirt on his critics in the Republican Party so he can keep them in line. Vlad offers him the services of the KGB and access to the files they keep on all prominent politicians. Donald says 'that'll do nicely'. What does Vlad want in return?
- Sow divisions in American society - Damage trust in American democracy - Reduce American influence/security in Middle East - Kneecap NATO
A deal is done.
Fanciful?
Slightly. I'd guess that political opposition research in the US is likely superior to most information Russian intelligence might have, but the idea isn't impossible.
And I wouldn't entirely dismiss the theory that Trump is a Russian agent of influence, as he certainly has behaved, and continues to behave like one. The far more parsimonious explanation, though, is that he's just a raging narcissist and sociopath.
Lol! Yes, I prefer Occam's razor myself but I was just struck by the craven, sycophantic postures in those photos.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
Incidentally there are no living former Tory MPs for Luton North @justin124
Not that any former MPs face judgement at election time. Key word is former, second key word is deceased, but even if he was still alive it would be former still.
Yet Corbyn is very much still alive and more importantly very much still an MP. So instead of whataboutering people who are dead and haven't even been an MP this century how about talking about antisemites of today like the existing Member for Islington North?
Good to know that such a repulsive being as Carlisle is no longer with us. He was clearly a racist with strong neofascist tendencies. Those who turned a blind eye to such evil are in no position to criticise Corbyn.
Your continued attempts to divert things to historic issues is both misplaced and pointless, and entirely misconceived. Awful MPs existed, let's focus on ones still sitting.
And I say that as someone who didn't think enough was provided to allow Starmer to push for Corbyn's expulsion. But despite what you claim it really is neither here nor there what former MPs did.
Ha. I think this is a pretty good illustration of the numeracy of Toby Young, and why his website should be disregarded.
--AS
That's the mystery though. Why are there some people who can be so wrong, so many times, and yet don't have their credibility destroyed, but are still listened to, over and over again?
Only a matter of time before Twitter starts putting warning messages on Tobster tweets surely?
It would be pretty hilarious if between now and the end of his term Trump signed a deal for NK to give up nuclear research etc. Him winning the peace prize whilst being so awful would be comic as hell.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
I really don’t understand the need to make PPE supply in the face of a global pandemic a party political point.
Labour were also sending list of potential suppliers to the government at the time, and I’m sure many suppliers reached out to anyone they knew who could understand public sector procurement - probably starting with their local MP.
If there’s genuine evidence of corruption - deliberate bad faith or financial backhanders to members of Parliament of government, then I’m all ears for an investigation - but characterising companies referred to NHS procurement through an MP as “their mates” is disengenuous given the situation we faced at the time.
Not healthy that an election loser has the power to lash out like this.
Can't Twitter trust the reader to judge whether or not a statement might be disputed? I tend to assume that any statement on Twitter is disputed anyway.
Yep, if the last few years have proved anything, it's that the average consumer of social media invariably treats it with a blend of cool detachment and analytical scepticism.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
There's less shame if that kleptocracy actually delivers you guaranteed gowns and masks when you go to work.
Plenty of time to deal with the thieves and chancers after Covid has been controlled.
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.
Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.
That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.
Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.
I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?
What is the alternative? Letting it rip would put the NHS out of commission for everything including C19 unless you flat out refused to treat anyone with it. I’m not sure of the proportion, but I expect the IFR of about 1% is only possible with best treatment: there are a lot more sick people who would die without it.
Some of the worst hit parts of the US are beginning to see health services crack: ICU rates well over 100% (i.e. regular beds being pressed into service as overflow) and even reports of non-Covid fatalities due to being able to get emergency treatment in time.
It would be pretty hilarious if between now and the end of his term Trump signed a deal for NK to give up nuclear research etc. Him winning the peace prize whilst being so awful would be comic as hell.
Yeah, but NK would have to actually stick to such a deal. Do you think Kim Jung-un would stick to it just to help his mate Donald, who is already a busted flush?
I looked on Wikipedia earlier trying to find a shittier coup d'état attempt than this one and I came up short, but I guess some of them are too shitty to make the history books.
How about Mad Mike and the Seychelles Affair? IIRC the coup was uncovered when one of the soldiers accidentally stood in the “something to declare line” at customs and the customs officer found he was carrying a bag full of automatic weapons
Or the one involving Mark Thatcher
What about the anti-Wilson one?
As depicted on The Crown? Insofar as that shows real history, which isnt that far.
No, it was real. I'm not watching The Crown, so I don't know how it was depicted. It was referred to in the Life of Lord Mountbatten a few days ago. Must have another look at my copy of Spycatcher.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
I really don’t understand the need to make PPE supply in the face of a global pandemic a party political point.
Labour were also sending list of potential suppliers to the government at the time, and I’m sure many suppliers reached out to anyone they knew who could understand public sector procurement - probably starting with their local MP.
If there’s genuine evidence of corruption - deliberate bad faith or financial backhanders to members of Parliament of government, then I’m all ears for an investigation - but characterising companies referred to NHS procurement through an MP as “their mates” is disengenuous given the situation we faced at the time.
If the companies were experts on sourcing PPE and recommended by a Tory politician that's one thing.
But aiui some of these were just individuals starting a shelf company and saying they could get some?
Well anyone could have done that if they were both overpaid by the govt and not held accountable if they didn't deliver the right goods! Do you really not see the difference?
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
So long as we have people like yourself cheerleading for the Government on all issues of contention, despite how bad the smell becomes, Johnson and his friends will never be called to account.
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
They always did, and the former already suggested US democracy was a sham I think. Now it looks more credible as not just Trump but most Republucans say the same thing.
Yes, I saw an Iranian leader saying "American elections are corrupt and rigged - don't take my word for it, just listen to the US President."
That will fade once Biden is actually installed, I think, since most voters and nearly all foreign leaders accept that he was elected fairly.
Ha. I think this is a pretty good illustration of the numeracy of Toby Young, and why his website should be disregarded.
--AS
That's the mystery though. Why are there some people who can be so wrong, so many times, and yet don't have their credibility destroyed, but are still listened to, over and over again?
Because they provide some number of people what they want to hear.
In a few weeks we'll likely get a sob story from the canvassers about all the death threats they've received (They've been doxed and the internet never forgets). Actions like trying to throw out an entire cities' results tend to have consequences.
I would imagine that being thrust from relative obscurity right into the national and global media spotlight made the two who voted against see a little bit of sense, and they settled for the fudge mentioned in the interview that there'll be some sort of review of voting procedure in the county.
Its simple but just begs further questions about how they came to realise that and if it was so obvious as to be realised within hours then why they couldn't have realised it before their first decision.
It's a 'we are stupid not malevolent' defence, always a last resort for politicians.
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.
Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.
That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.
Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.
I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?
What is the alternative? Letting it rip would put the NHS out of commission for everything including C19 unless you flat out refused to treat anyone with it. I’m not sure of the proportion, but I expect the IFR of about 1% is only possible with best treatment: there are a lot more sick people who would die without it.
Some of the worst hit parts of the US are beginning to see health services crack: ICU rates well over 100% (i.e. regular beds being pressed into service as overflow) and even reports of non-Covid fatalities due to being able to get emergency treatment in time.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
Fanatical primary voters.
Fairy nuff. But here's another theory.
Early in his Presidency he visits Vladimir Putin. He speaks to him alone, no officials present, just Vlad's translator. Vlad asks him what he needs. Trump says he needs some dirt on his critics in the Republican Party so he can keep them in line. Vlad offers him the services of the KGB and access to the files they keep on all prominent politicians. Donald says 'that'll do nicely'. What does Vlad want in return?
- Sow divisions in American society - Damage trust in American democracy - Reduce American influence/security in Middle East - Kneecap NATO
A deal is done.
Fanciful?
Slightly. I'd guess that political opposition research in the US is likely superior to most information Russian intelligence might have, but the idea isn't impossible.
And I wouldn't entirely dismiss the theory that Trump is a Russian agent of influence, as he certainly has behaved, and continues to behave like one. The far more parsimonious explanation, though, is that he's just a raging narcissist and sociopath.
Lol! Yes, I prefer Occam's razor myself but I was just struck by the craven, sycophantic postures in those photos.
Maybe one day we will learn the truth.
Talking about sycophantic....I just heard Alok Sharma on radio describe how helping those in the North East and Liverpool is an absolute passion of the Prime Minister. He must surely know that 99% of the population won't believe that. They know what the Prime ministers interests are and helping people ANYWHERE doesn't feature! So all his interview has achieved is making Sharma himself sound foolish.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
Things were certainly very tight in April. Our procurements team were sometimes driving all night in their own vehicles to get enough PPE for the morning shifts. At the moment supplies seem OK. We have several days supply in our stockroom.
So, yes in April desperate measures were needed. That doesn't mean that the profiteering of the well connected should be ignored after the event, and it is certainly possible to have more normal procurement now.
Indeed I believe procurement is more normal now, the stories of procurement that are getting questioned were contracts signed months ago when as you said "desperate measures" were needed.
I think you've put it well: desperate times call for desperate measures. If there's issues now when times aren't desperate then that's a different matter, but for companies that stepped up to the plate when we were desperate and helped ensure continuity of supply then I would suggest after the fact that Honours are more appropriate than condemnation!
Withdraw the whip and suspend the Executive. This is a big moment. The more the Republicans go down this "vote fraud" road the more they are alienating middle of the road folk that they need. It seems the Georgia vote count was okay except for that box of two and a half thousand votes that were missed. I always though the Electoral Officer had to certify the number of votes cast at the polling stations with the number at the end of the count.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
I really don’t understand the need to make PPE supply in the face of a global pandemic a party political point.
Labour were also sending list of potential suppliers to the government at the time, and I’m sure many suppliers reached out to anyone they knew who could understand public sector procurement - probably starting with their local MP.
If there’s genuine evidence of corruption - deliberate bad faith or financial backhanders to members of Parliament of government, then I’m all ears for an investigation - but characterising companies referred to NHS procurement through an MP as “their mates” is disengenuous given the situation we faced at the time.
If the companies were experts on sourcing PPE and recommended by a Tory politician that's one thing.
But aiui some of these were just individuals starting a shelf company and saying they could get some?
Well anyone could have done that if they were both overpaid by the govt and not held accountable if they didn't deliver the right goods! Do you really not see the difference?
I absolutely said that people should be held accountable for the money they were given, and the NAO report today is a good starting point for that process. Where goods ordered were not delivered, I’d expect to see a report in each case about what efforts were underway to recover the money.
I also think that automatically characterising such arrangements as various types of bad, to make party-political points and without any evidence of actual wrongdoing, is wrong.
Our estimates for IFR are in the basis of a certain level of hospital treatment. Given the numbers of people hospitalised, and of those the numbers who require intensive care treatment, I suspect that the IFR for Covid-19 in a medieval society would have been above 5%.
That also means that's the IFR we face if we let hospital capacity become overwhelmed.
I find the argument that we have overreacted to Covid, because we've successfully prevented it from killing the 3 million who would have died in the worst-case scenario a bit illogical.
Have New Zealand overreacted more because they've been more successful in stopping the virus? But then they have crowds at sports stadiums so they have less death and less impact on society.
NZs success needs to be put alongside tourism being their largest industry.
FPT - Re Wayne County deadlocked on certifying vote:
What happens next?
Apparently it goes up one level to the State Board of Canvassers and they do it.
Which has four member, yes? Two GoP, two Dems. Chairman is Dem, so presumably has casting vote. Gets through, no?
Right result in the end but if the officials don't accept the votes of the public then they don't believe in Democracy. That's quite bad.
No, according to the Guardian blog they have to vote 3-1 to decide it:
Republicans blocked Michigan’s largest county from certifying the results of the 3 November election on Tuesday, an alarming development that leaves wiggle room for Donald Trump in a state he lost by around 146,000 votes.
The four-member board of canvassers in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, deadlocked along partisan lines on Tuesday over certifying the election results. Joe Biden carried the county by nearly 323,000 votes. The decision essentially leaves certification up to the Michigan state board of canvassers, according to the Washington Post. The board is split along partisan lines and must approve election results with at least a 3-1 vote, according to Bridge Michigan.
And then it winds up in court in front of a judge who is peeved at having to sort out the bleeding obvious because some adults are acting like 3 year olds.
Even if they swing Michigan to Trump, he still loses the election
Ok, so there's a good chance the State Board confirms the vote anyway, but if it doesn't it goes to a judge. That judge cannot however decide what the election result should be. I wouldn't think that's within his remit. All he can do is send it back to the Canvassers and say 'You sort it out - with a rerun of the election if need be.'
The worst that is going to happen is that the Michigan ECV's are effectively void, which as you indicate won't cause the result of the election to be overturned.
I suppose the judge could perhaps say the Canvassers were not acting in good faith?
All suggests delay rather than an overturning of the Presidential election. Dammit, Biden won by 6m votes! Are they asking for civil unrest?
Why would the Republicans just pull this stunt in Michigan?
Do the same thing in a couple of other key States and bingo Trump wins.
Now hopefully the Courts would intervene to stop it but who knows? This is the USA - anything goes.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be remarkably complacent about the whole thing.
How much chance Trump has I don't know but I wouldn't dream of risking my life savings backing Biden at 1.05.
I'm too lazy to do the arith but Trump has to pull the stunt in quite a number of States because failure to certify the result does not automatically hand the ECVs to him. I don't think the situation has arisen before but I would imagine the best Trump could hope for would be a voiding of the results. If the Canvassers or the Courts tried to award the ECVs to Trump and as a result he remained in office I really do think there would be civil unrest.
I come back to my considered view that this is all a game of stalling. There must be very high stakes involved for so many people to put so much at risk.
One shudders to think what Machiavellian schemes may be unfolding.
Doesn’t he “just” have to get Biden from 306(?) to under 270 though?
Decertifying Michigan & Pennsylvania would take him to 270 on the nose...
I think if you're Trump and don't care about democratic processes (you're not against them, necessarily, they just aren't salient to you), you feel that chaotic objections to everything will either overturn the result (unlikely but you might get lucky) or create such a cloud of doubt that you'll be well-placed to be the King Over the WEater, opposing everything that Biden does and leading a permanent opposition for 4 years. What's not to like, from his (repellent) viewpoint?
It would be pretty hilarious if between now and the end of his term Trump signed a deal for NK to give up nuclear research etc. Him winning the peace prize whilst being so awful would be comic as hell.
Yeah, but NK would have to actually stick to such a deal. Do you think Kim Jung-un would stick to it just to help his mate Donald, who is already a busted flush?
Only needs to stick to it for enough months to get the award. Several winners didn't actually achieve much or stick to what got it awarded to them.
In a few weeks we'll likely get a sob story from the canvassers about all the death threats they've received (They've been doxed and the internet never forgets). Actions like trying to throw out an entire cities' results tend to have consequences.
I hope not. From the CNN story linked to above, it appears that sort of stuff was already going on. ...Edith Lee-Payne, who worked as a supervisor of poll workers at the TCF Center in Detroit where the city's absentee ballots were counted, laid out the step-by-step process of how absentee ballots were counted, hoping to discredit any suggestions of fraud. She shared that at one point a Republican poll challenger approached her in a way that made her afraid for her life...
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
So long as we have people like yourself cheerleading for the Government on all issues of contention, despite how bad the smell becomes, Johnson and his friends will never be called to account.
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
I don't believe getting PPE during a pandemic is "looking after friends".
This may come as a shock to you but I believe getting PPE during a pandemic is looking after doctors and nurses like our very own good doctor Foxy who has in his own words called the situation in the spring "desperate".
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normal times of course absolutely have different standards.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
73.3 million votes is a lot of supporters. Not being flippant.
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
You're mistaken here David. The fatality rate for the whole population cannot be known until everyone has been exposed to the disease. Young's tweet is not 'badly phrased', it just plain wrong.
Black Death was of course a whole different order of catastrophe but the estimated 30-60% fatality rate is based on it's effect across the whole population.
That's why I phrased it in the present tense. I would expect us to exceed 0.1% within a few months, possibly even 0.2% ultimately. I am not defending Toby, the man's an idiot. I was making a rather different point about the scale of the disaster we are facing. The number of deaths under 65 remain very small, the preponderance of death is over 80 and yet we have wreaked our economy, our young peoples' education and so many businesses. However resilient society was in the Middle Ages ours has proven remarkably vulnerable to what is in fact a very modest ripple in the normal death rate.
Politicians feel a desperate need to be seen to do something. Nicola was a particularly poor example yesterday. After 3 weeks when the infection rate in Glasgow exceeded 300 in 100k she took severe action after a week when it had been below because the death rate (lagging of course) was climbing.
I understand the pressures but just maybe this hyperactivity is not in fact the answer?
What is the alternative? Letting it rip would put the NHS out of commission for everything including C19 unless you flat out refused to treat anyone with it. I’m not sure of the proportion, but I expect the IFR of about 1% is only possible with best treatment: there are a lot more sick people who would die without it.
Some of the worst hit parts of the US are beginning to see health services crack: ICU rates well over 100% (i.e. regular beds being pressed into service as overflow) and even reports of non-Covid fatalities due to being able to get emergency treatment in time.
The contrast with the care received by Trump as a patient could scarcely be greater.
Trump received every treatment available, together with photo-opportunities and even outings to wave to his supporters.
This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/
How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?
I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.
Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.
I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.
The cult - including major unions like Unite - haven't gone quiet since Jezbollah stepped down so they're unlikely to do so now He has been Cleared of All Wrongdoing. Nor will the media want to ignore such a marvellous and long-legged story.
Bringing the Party into Disrepute. That's what they needed to deploy against Corbyn and his acolytes. Force the cult to deny that an EHRC investigation and guilty findings bring the party into disrepute. That egregious GDPR breeches bring the party into disrepute. That libel against former staffers and a journalist whistleblowing against you brings the party into disrepute. And then boot ALL of them out.
Instead we have this. They have been vilified. Solidified. Vindicated. And they will draw strength from the experience. Its a disgrace.
I don't think the EHCR report says what you think it does. It basically says Labour's complaints system was not fit for purpose, and that the leadership interfered with disciplinary decisions. You are calling for the leadership to interfere again.
Incidentally there are no living former Tory MPs for Luton North @justin124
Not that any former MPs face judgement at election time. Key word is former, second key word is deceased, but even if he was still alive it would be former still.
Yet Corbyn is very much still alive and more importantly very much still an MP. So instead of whataboutering people who are dead and haven't even been an MP this century how about talking about antisemites of today like the existing Member for Islington North?
Good to know that such a repulsive being as Carlisle is no longer with us. He was clearly a racist with strong neofascist tendencies. Those who turned a blind eye to such evil are in no position to criticise Corbyn.
I don't think any Tory is in a position to criticise Corbyn for racism. Nor any Brexiteer for that matter.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
So you knew there wasn't going to be a second wave - so we could forget about getting continuing stocks piled up?
There was plenty of time from May onwards to have more transparent procurement.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
I really don’t understand the need to make PPE supply in the face of a global pandemic a party political point.
Labour were also sending list of potential suppliers to the government at the time, and I’m sure many suppliers reached out to anyone they knew who could understand public sector procurement - probably starting with their local MP.
If there’s genuine evidence of corruption - deliberate bad faith or financial backhanders to members of Parliament of government, then I’m all ears for an investigation - but characterising companies referred to NHS procurement through an MP as “their mates” is disengenuous given the situation we faced at the time.
If the companies were experts on sourcing PPE and recommended by a Tory politician that's one thing.
But aiui some of these were just individuals starting a shelf company and saying they could get some?
Well anyone could have done that if they were both overpaid by the govt and not held accountable if they didn't deliver the right goods! Do you really not see the difference?
I absolutely said that people should be held accountable for the money they were given, and the NAO report today is a good starting point for that process. Where goods ordered were not delivered, I’d expect to see a report in each case about what efforts were underway to recover the money.
I also think that automatically characterising such arrangements as various types of bad, to make party-political points and without any evidence of actual wrongdoing, is wrong.
Does that extend to the ministers who bought the goods or just the companies? If the former it inevitably becomes political, if the latter its accepting kleptocracy as redress for taking advantage of a weak and naive govt (at best) isnt particularly powerful.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/
How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?
I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.
Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.
I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.
The cult - including major unions like Unite - haven't gone quiet since Jezbollah stepped down so they're unlikely to do so now He has been Cleared of All Wrongdoing. Nor will the media want to ignore such a marvellous and long-legged story.
Bringing the Party into Disrepute. That's what they needed to deploy against Corbyn and his acolytes. Force the cult to deny that an EHRC investigation and guilty findings bring the party into disrepute. That egregious GDPR breeches bring the party into disrepute. That libel against former staffers and a journalist whistleblowing against you brings the party into disrepute. And then boot ALL of them out.
Instead we have this. They have been vilified. Solidified. Vindicated. And they will draw strength from the experience. Its a disgrace.
I don't think the EHCR report says what you think it does. It basically says Labour's complaints system was not fit for purpose, and that the leadership interfered with disciplinary decisions. You are calling for the leadership to interfere again.
Yes the system was not fit for purpose - and the system has again been not fit for purpose.
The leader was putting in a new system that would impartially investigate these matters - instead a politicised NEC has expedited this in order to clear someone they like politically interfering with the disciplinary decision and bypassing the disciplinary decision making.
By allowing the NEC to expedite this and make a political rather than impartial decision it is again being politicised. This is exactly what the EHRC was warning against continuing.
The leader preventing both himself and the NEC from interfering and allowing a proper disciplinary investigation to occur would be following the EHRC's recommendations.
While we apparently can't seem to do so for a single city, Slovakia appear to be making rapid testing work for the whole country. It will be very interesting to see what results they report next week.
This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/
How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?
I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.
Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.
I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.
The cult - including major unions like Unite - haven't gone quiet since Jezbollah stepped down so they're unlikely to do so now He has been Cleared of All Wrongdoing. Nor will the media want to ignore such a marvellous and long-legged story.
Bringing the Party into Disrepute. That's what they needed to deploy against Corbyn and his acolytes. Force the cult to deny that an EHRC investigation and guilty findings bring the party into disrepute. That egregious GDPR breeches bring the party into disrepute. That libel against former staffers and a journalist whistleblowing against you brings the party into disrepute. And then boot ALL of them out.
Instead we have this. They have been vilified. Solidified. Vindicated. And they will draw strength from the experience. Its a disgrace.
I don't think the EHCR report says what you think it does. It basically says Labour's complaints system was not fit for purpose, and that the leadership interfered with disciplinary decisions. You are calling for the leadership to interfere again.
It's more what Keir himself says though, innit? "I know we have a long way to go, but I am absolutely resolute in my determination to make the Labour Party a safe place for Jewish people." Not the words of a man who believes he has a purely technical process issue on his hands.
Also twee and patronising as fck, btw. It sounds as if he wants the Labour party to be a sort of Hedgehog Hotel, only for Jews, where they can be wrapped in cotton wool and fed warm milk through an eyedropper.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
So long as we have people like yourself cheerleading for the Government on all issues of contention, despite how bad the smell becomes, Johnson and his friends will never be called to account.
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
I don't believe getting PPE during a pandemic is "looking after friends".
This may come as a shock to you but I believe getting PPE during a pandemic is looking after doctors and nurses like our very own good doctor Foxy who has in his own words called the situation in the spring "desperate".
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normal times of course absolutely have different standards.
There is never any analysis from you.
No one disputes the need for PPE, but when you dig down to find that PPE was procured by an American jewellery designer with, it seems, no prior experience, via a Spanish middle man both of whom made millions, it doesn't look right.
You would be outraged if this had gone on during Blair's Premiership, and you would be right.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
I'm more worried about the situation after Christmas. It probably won't be gravy that'll be uppermost in our minds then. Or anti-Semitism, for that matter.
Incidentally there are no living former Tory MPs for Luton North @justin124
Not that any former MPs face judgement at election time. Key word is former, second key word is deceased, but even if he was still alive it would be former still.
Yet Corbyn is very much still alive and more importantly very much still an MP. So instead of whataboutering people who are dead and haven't even been an MP this century how about talking about antisemites of today like the existing Member for Islington North?
Good to know that such a repulsive being as Carlisle is no longer with us. He was clearly a racist with strong neofascist tendencies. Those who turned a blind eye to such evil are in no position to criticise Corbyn.
I don't think any Tory is in a position to criticise Corbyn for racism. Nor any Brexiteer for that matter.
By your logic even if he did something unequivocally racist millions upon millions of people would not be allowed to criticise him for it because of tangential connections through their politics.
Do you really want to open that door? Find one racist labour member and suddenly labour could not criticise Tory racists either, and that would not be reasonable.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
So long as we have people like yourself cheerleading for the Government on all issues of contention, despite how bad the smell becomes, Johnson and his friends will never be called to account.
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
I don't believe getting PPE during a pandemic is "looking after friends".
This may come as a shock to you but I believe getting PPE during a pandemic is looking after doctors and nurses like our very own good doctor Foxy who has in his own words called the situation in the spring "desperate".
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normal times of course absolutely have different standards.
Let us see the Venn diagram of people advancing this defence and those who attacked Labour's list.
Or who attacked others for suggesting PPE production could be ramped up at home, or others (including a pb header) calling for the appointment of a PPE tsar by analogy with the wartime minister of production.
Yes, something had to be done. Indeed, something was done. That is to the government's credit. Funny how so much of this something transferred wodges of cash to friends of Conservatives. That's the part that smacks of corruption.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
Things were certainly very tight in April. Our procurements team were sometimes driving all night in their own vehicles to get enough PPE for the morning shifts. At the moment supplies seem OK. We have several days supply in our stockroom.
So, yes in April desperate measures were needed. That doesn't mean that the profiteering of the well connected should be ignored after the event, and it is certainly possible to have more normal procurement now.
Indeed I believe procurement is more normal now, the stories of procurement that are getting questioned were contracts signed months ago when as you said "desperate measures" were needed.
I think you've put it well: desperate times call for desperate measures. If there's issues now when times aren't desperate then that's a different matter, but for companies that stepped up to the plate when we were desperate and helped ensure continuity of supply then I would suggest after the fact that Honours are more appropriate than condemnation!
Nearly half of the PPE contracts signed in the first half of the year have yet to be published.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
It would be a bit odd, given the UK demographic, if they just had a black family, but there are three families in their adverts, and this was just one of them. It’s such a delicate subject, I don’t know if having one advert for x, and another for y etc is that good an idea though.
Procurement. Even in a mad rush with not enough supply you can't just throw cash around - if you do we end up with the Turkish masks fiasco. A commitment to buypass normal tendering procedure in an emergency is fine as long as you actually get what you need and paid for.
The suggestion in the various reports into this is that after the initial emergency short supply had passed is that large contracts have been awarded to chums without tender and in some cases with little or nothing to show or it.
Emergency procurement during an emergency? Understandable. Using that emergency as excuse to carry on lining the pockets of chums? Not acceptable.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
Things were certainly very tight in April. Our procurements team were sometimes driving all night in their own vehicles to get enough PPE for the morning shifts. At the moment supplies seem OK. We have several days supply in our stockroom.
So, yes in April desperate measures were needed. That doesn't mean that the profiteering of the well connected should be ignored after the event, and it is certainly possible to have more normal procurement now.
Indeed I believe procurement is more normal now, the stories of procurement that are getting questioned were contracts signed months ago when as you said "desperate measures" were needed.
I think you've put it well: desperate times call for desperate measures. If there's issues now when times aren't desperate then that's a different matter, but for companies that stepped up to the plate when we were desperate and helped ensure continuity of supply then I would suggest after the fact that Honours are more appropriate than condemnation!
Nearly half of the PPE contracts signed in the first half of the year have yet to be published.
And I couldn't give a flying f##k about any of them.
In the words of Foxy in the first half of the year we were "desperate" for PPE. We got PPE. Job done, well done. As our resident expert on the NHS I am happy to defer to Foxy's expertise on the desperation of the situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Since we're not desperate now if contracts are getting signed now that aren't going through proper procedures that would be a different matter. But not during the first half of the year.
Procurement. Even in a mad rush with not enough supply you can't just throw cash around - if you do we end up with the Turkish masks fiasco. A commitment to buypass normal tendering procedure in an emergency is fine as long as you actually get what you need and paid for.
The suggestion in the various reports into this is that after the initial emergency short supply had passed is that large contracts have been awarded to chums without tender and in some cases with little or nothing to show or it.
Emergency procurement during an emergency? Understandable. Using that emergency as excuse to carry on lining the pockets of chums? Not acceptable.
If "chums" are not honouring the contracts that were signed and not delivering the PPE then that absolutely should be a matter for the Police and there should be criminal investigations if laws were broken.
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
I'd say it was a combination of the power (slipping away) and patronage he still holds as President until January, his sway over the party base, his sway over rural voters who don't normally vote in such large numbers, and fear of the future power he might have if he launches Trump TV (and stays out of jail).
The more interesting question is why there isn't greater downside from acting so crazy.
This is going to be a controversial view I’m sure, but what the hell were government supposed to do at the start of a pandemic with a thousand people a day dying? Hold the usual six-month procurement process, or find anyone and everyone they knew who could get hold of PPE?
Yes, those who were paid for things not delivered should be asked to account for the money, by a court if necessary, but I find it incredibly difficult to criticise those involved in the race for procurement at the time. Everyone in the world was trying to get their hands on gowns, masks and gloves, and by some accounts the UK came very close to running out in hospitals - would the same people complaining today have also been complaining in that situation as well?
Yes, but these contracts were still being handed out without proper scrutiny well after the initial crisis passed. This is from the National Audit Office:
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you the "canary in the mine" here saying very vocally that you were very, very worried about running out of PPE?
Have you got any such concerns about running out of PPE now?
So long as we have people like yourself cheerleading for the Government on all issues of contention, despite how bad the smell becomes, Johnson and his friends will never be called to account.
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
I don't believe getting PPE during a pandemic is "looking after friends".
This may come as a shock to you but I believe getting PPE during a pandemic is looking after doctors and nurses like our very own good doctor Foxy who has in his own words called the situation in the spring "desperate".
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normal times of course absolutely have different standards.
There is never any analysis from you.
No one disputes the need for PPE, but when you dig down to find that PPE was procured by an American jewellery designer with, it seems, no prior experience, via a Spanish middle man both of whom made millions, it doesn't look right.
You would be outraged if this had gone on during Blair's Premiership, and you would be right.
The American jewellery designer from according news reports was someone who was capable of importing goods who had contacts in China and that was the skill that was needed. He said he was able to import PPE for us, he did import the PPE, so job done.
Considering there was no global pandemic going on during Blair's Premiership then yes there would have been no reason for such desperation during Blair's years. There was a global pandemic in the Spring.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
Holy fck. "Another reason to boycott sainsburys." And people think the idea there is racism in this country is neo-marxist gibberish cooked up by BLM.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to have an advert for black people, and presumably one for white/another for Asian though do you? Unless they all pop round each other’s houses and party together in the last one (which would infringe social distancing)
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
Holy fck. "Another reason to boycott sainsburys." And people think the idea there is racism in this country is neo-marxist gibberish cooked up by BLM.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to have an advert for black people, and presumably one for white/another for Asian though do you? Unless they all pop round each other’s houses and party together in the last one (which would infringe social distancing)
When I saw it last night I thought it was a very good advert, one of the best of the year so far.
I didn't even notice the colour of the actors or think it as relevant.
For a non-racist white individual there is absolutely no problem with seeing a black family having relatable Christmas experiences.
There was a time when people were literally dying for want of PPE. Of course the government cut corners to get all that they could. Of course some of what they bought turned out to be crap. Of course they contacted businesses that they knew who they thought could help immediately. Of course some of those businesses might have profiteered from that. So what? People were dying FFS.
The issue is not that they ignored procurement rules. That is indeed defensible in an emergency situation. It's that they ignored procurement rules to give money to their mates.
Many of whom obviously, obviously had no prior experience with making, supplying or distributing PPE.
Procurement. Even in a mad rush with not enough supply you can't just throw cash around - if you do we end up with the Turkish masks fiasco. A commitment to buypass normal tendering procedure in an emergency is fine as long as you actually get what you need and paid for.
The suggestion in the various reports into this is that after the initial emergency short supply had passed is that large contracts have been awarded to chums without tender and in some cases with little or nothing to show or it.
Emergency procurement during an emergency? Understandable. Using that emergency as excuse to carry on lining the pockets of chums? Not acceptable.
If "chums" are not honouring the contracts that were signed and not delivering the PPE then that absolutely should be a matter for the Police and there should be criminal investigations if laws were broken.
But if they have supplied the PPE then job done.
As you say, though, you don't care about finding out any of that. And if contracts aren't published, you never will.
I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.
Emergency workers. Critical systems workers. NHS Staff. Care home staff. Supermarket staff. Anyone who works for a bank.
The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.
Teachers notably absent from that list.
You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.
I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.
But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.
The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.
Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.
There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.
If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.
A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.
Tell us, is it true positives or false positives 'rampaging' through schools?
This has turned into an epidemic of bad science with the trusted figures being mostly those from the ONS, KCL, CEBM or other institutions unconnected to the government.
The different testing method now being used in Liverpool reportedly shows a much lower rate of infection. Yeadon said he suspects accidental contamination of some PCR samples.
Funny if it were a TV comedy, 'Carry on Corona'; not so funny when peoples' livelihoods are being destroyed ... I'm talking about for instance the 10% of businesses that closed in late spring, never to reopen and people who are dying in care homes because they haven't seen their loved ones for 3-6 months.
The obvious conclusions, given that the deaths are a given number, are that IF the number of infections is considerably lower than indicated due to false positives (one assumes indicated by the ONS survey as that's the gold standard):
- The virus is considerably deadlier than believed and the true IFR must be quite a bit higher than the 0.8%-0.9% indicated by dividing the deaths by the ONS-indicated infections 19 days prior.
- The number of people who have had covid and recovered (and thus the distance travelled towards herd immunity) is a lot less than believed.
- The "Great Barrington Declaration" would therefore take even longer than our own fears and garner a truly staggering death toll if ever pursued.
Those three points can't be wrong if the contention that the infection rate is a lot lower than indicated by current testing through the ONS survey (not opinion; arithmetic: decrease the denominator and the size of the fraction calculated must increase).
If, say, false positives amount to half of the whole, then the IFR is 1.6%-1.8%. And the number of people who have been infected so far is 3 million to 4 million; to get to herd immunity via infection would take ten to fifteen times as many, and therefore incur 600,000 - 900,000 deaths in the UK alone.
I'm not completely convinced that's the message that Tice, Young, Farage, and their mates at lockdownsceptics want us to take away, but that's arithmetic.
There was a time when people were literally dying for want of PPE. Of course the government cut corners to get all that they could. Of course some of what they bought turned out to be crap. Of course they contacted businesses that they knew who they thought could help immediately. Of course some of those businesses might have profiteered from that. So what? People were dying FFS.
The issue is not that they ignored procurement rules. That is indeed defensible in an emergency situation. It's that they ignored procurement rules to give money to their mates.
Many of whom obviously, obviously had no prior experience with making, supplying or distributing PPE.
I think it would be useful to know how many PPE contracts were issued, and how many of those supposedly went to "mates".
Hypocrisy come easy when you’ve has as much practice as Graham.
Genuine question - why do we think so many Republicans are afraid of Trump?
You see it not only in their craven submission to outrageous conduct, such as the sacking of Krebs, but in their body language when with him. The photos look like parodies of meetings of top-ranking Korean officials with Kim Jong-un.
What has he got on them?
Reselection. GOP Congressmen remember the Tea Party whose membership ejected a lot of long-serving moderate Republicans at the primary stage. Local party members tend to be more extreme than average voters, and this is exacerbated when extremist leaders encourage new recruits. That's true here too.
As a bonus, Trump might ram through executive orders to give Republicans some raw meat in his last two months.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
Who would deny gingers a bit more prominence in the media?
Time for the lobby hacks to look up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
I'd think having a stable climate comes pretty high up.
Not if you’re already working multiple jobs to pay the increasing energy bills, it isn’t.
If you're going to define stuff so myopically, then why are we wasting all that money on a nuclear deterrent ? Which is the other reason we pay vast amounts of money for nuclear power stations, and their eventual decommissioning - another factor in your 'increasing energy bills'.
And if you raised your gaze just a little, you'd realise that renewables are becoming the cheapest form of energy worldwide.
The comments on Twitter under this Sainsbury's ad - that has the temerity to show a black family celebrating Christmas - are a sight to behold. I only became aware of it as it was filmed in a house a couple of streets down from me. As others have noted, people had less of a problem with the Asda ad which portrayed a family of carrots.
Holy fck. "Another reason to boycott sainsburys." And people think the idea there is racism in this country is neo-marxist gibberish cooked up by BLM.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to have an advert for black people, and presumably one for white/another for Asian though do you? Unless they all pop round each other’s houses and party together in the last one (which would infringe social distancing)
When I saw it last night I thought it was a very good advert, one of the best of the year so far.
I didn't even notice the colour of the actors or think it as relevant.
For a non-racist white individual there is absolutely no problem with seeing a black family having relatable Christmas experiences.
I only saw it on here in the context of people complaining about the racial element, but I definitely think I’d notice. Sainsbury’s obviously think it’s relevant as they deliberately went for an all black advert, it wasn’t just the way it turned out. Probably in their mind that it would get some peoples backs up and therefore get them secondary advertising
This Corbyn thing. The EHRC said that the leader should stay out of the way of disciplinary cases to avoid political interference. The reality here is that the panel investigating him is itself the political interference. How is an impartial assessment to be made when the chair of the investigating panel is a Corbynite who has already pledged fealty to Him? Read her piece just before the NEC election which cites "the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn": https://labouroutlook.org/2020/11/11/rebuilding-to-win-yasmine-dar-ann-henderson-labour-nec-members-grassrootsvoice/
How can anyone read the EHRC report, remember the outrages of the Corbyn era and then see the smiling twat apparently victorious and absolved and then think that the party has changed?
I said on the day the report was published that Starmer was spineless. Being forced to suspend Him having decided not to do so is not leadership, it is weakness. Allowing Him to be cleared of wrongdoing and lauded back into the party as a returning messiah is a disaster.
Labour has to be Tough on Corbyn, Tough on the Causes of Corbyn. It isn't acceptable to have the deposed leader sat with a significant support group clearly holding the whip hand over the party. You can't change direction and make amends whilst the people who did the damage sit on board doing more damage. Sorry Labour, but this is a massive own goal.
I think it depends what happens next. If media goes back to the old days of basically ignoring Corbyn et al, I think Starmer and Labour will be fine. If, however, they make noises against Starmer and his policies (when we hear them, that is), then it could be difficult.
The cult - including major unions like Unite - haven't gone quiet since Jezbollah stepped down so they're unlikely to do so now He has been Cleared of All Wrongdoing. Nor will the media want to ignore such a marvellous and long-legged story.
Bringing the Party into Disrepute. That's what they needed to deploy against Corbyn and his acolytes. Force the cult to deny that an EHRC investigation and guilty findings bring the party into disrepute. That egregious GDPR breeches bring the party into disrepute. That libel against former staffers and a journalist whistleblowing against you brings the party into disrepute. And then boot ALL of them out.
Instead we have this. They have been vilified. Solidified. Vindicated. And they will draw strength from the experience. Its a disgrace.
I don't think the EHCR report says what you think it does. It basically says Labour's complaints system was not fit for purpose, and that the leadership interfered with disciplinary decisions. You are calling for the leadership to interfere again.
As the leadership interfering with the disciplinary panel was political interference, I am saying that since they installed pro-Corbyn frothers like Dar onto the panel that the panel itself has *already* received political interference. The report said that Labour needs an independent and impartial complaints process. This is neither.
Procurement. Even in a mad rush with not enough supply you can't just throw cash around - if you do we end up with the Turkish masks fiasco. A commitment to buypass normal tendering procedure in an emergency is fine as long as you actually get what you need and paid for.
The suggestion in the various reports into this is that after the initial emergency short supply had passed is that large contracts have been awarded to chums without tender and in some cases with little or nothing to show or it.
Emergency procurement during an emergency? Understandable. Using that emergency as excuse to carry on lining the pockets of chums? Not acceptable.
If "chums" are not honouring the contracts that were signed and not delivering the PPE then that absolutely should be a matter for the Police and there should be criminal investigations if laws were broken.
But if they have supplied the PPE then job done.
According to reports some of them haven't. And what is the betting that the contract can't hold them to delivery?
I think the current government list of key workers will determine who gets the vaccine first.
Emergency workers. Critical systems workers. NHS Staff. Care home staff. Supermarket staff. Anyone who works for a bank.
The latter one was a brilliant decision by the government.
Teachers notably absent from that list.
You've been usurped by bank workers, fairly I'd say. Sorry.
I don’t need sex. My bank fucks me every day.
But it would be bizarre to have bankers, who can work over the phone, placed ahead of teachers, who are being forced more or less at gunpoint to work in ideal transmission situations without any meaningful protection, in the queue for the vaccine.
The logic is that the country can cope, short term, with the schools being closed, it cannot cope if the financial services sector has to close for anything more than a few days.
Well, we look set to find out about how we can manage without schools in roughly another fortnight the way things are going.
There's still plenty of schooling going on in Tier 3, which I guess Staffs (isn't it?) would be approaching if that was still in place.
If lockdown is working - and from Tier 3 and Devolved Nations results, there's no reason to suppose it isn't, infection rates should turn downwards mostly everywhere towards the end of this week and into next week.
A fat lot of fine bloody use an overall fall will be if it continues rampaging through schools so we don’t have enough staff to open. Which is what is happening, regardless of what the losers and lowlifes in Whitehall may think.
Tell us, is it true positives or false positives 'rampaging' through schools?
This has turned into an epidemic of bad science with the trusted figures being mostly those from the ONS, KCL, CEBM or other institutions unconnected to the government.
The different testing method now being used in Liverpool reportedly shows a much lower rate of infection. Yeadon said he suspects accidental contamination of some PCR samples.
Funny if it were a TV comedy, 'Carry on Corona'; not so funny when peoples' livelihoods are being destroyed ... I'm talking about for instance the 10% of businesses that closed in late spring, never to reopen and people who are dying in care homes because they haven't seen their loved ones for 3-6 months.
JFC!
We know due to data from August and September that the rise in cases isn't false positives. We know this because when there was a MASSSIVE spike in testing coinciding with the start of school there was no MASSIVE spike in cases.
If false positives are the reason for rising cases then we should have see a spike in positive cases to match the increased testing when school started. We didn't. So it isn't.
That's it. End of message.
PCR is too sensitive, it picks up bits of viral RNA in people no longer infectious. But that rate is probably fairly constant so the recent increase in cases is real.
Yeadon suspects that procedures are becoming less careful as testing is scaled up, up ... and up ... and that accuracy may have declined compared to summer, let alone spring. He said that he'd like to see hospital patients with a positive COVID PCR test given the new test ASAP.
Yeadon claims that there will be no second wave. (Oops, sorry, "claimed" that there would be no second wave)
Yeadon claims that 70%+ of us are already immune. (Which would mean herd immunity is already present and that the R rate would be sub-1.0 even if we went back to normal. Oops, sorry, "claimed" that, a month or so ago, before we started declaring nearly 600 covid deaths in one day from infections that occurred after his claim)
Yeadon claims that false positives flood the system, despite the test capability increasing by a factor of three, the number of tests by a factor of 5, and the number of positives by a factor of 50 (so, how many of the 400 positives recorded per day in July were false? We'd need several thousand of those 400 to be false... how exactly does that work)
Yeadon effectively claims, if false positives flood the system, that the true IFR is actually close to 2% and thus following the Great Barrington Declaration would involve burying something close to a million people.
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
He literally said he was dividing 5,000,000 by 50,000 and getting one in a thousand. So - dividing five thousand thousands by fifty thousands and getting one thousandth????
He's... he's failed to divide one number by another.
It's certainly not well phrased but the fatality rate for the whole population remains well under 0.1%. Maybe he doesn't know what IFR means?
It does bring to mind, however, that the fatality rate for the whole population for the black death was somewhere between 50 and 60%, that is between 500 and 600 times greater. An agrarian, largely rural society but I find it astonishing that anything like society actually survived that.
He literally said he was dividing 5,000,000 by 50,000 and getting one in a thousand. So - dividing five thousand thousands by fifty thousands and getting one thousandth????
I hope he doesn't do his own accounts.
From henceforth he should be known as 'place value guy'.
Meanwhile, the true believers over at lockdownsceptics believe that:
- False positives have spiked for some unknown reason, spreading almost like a virus - People are turning up at hospital with false positivity about ten days delayed from the spread of false positives - People are dying about twenty days after the increased spread in false positives, with the rate of dying continuing to climb and now very visible in excess deaths - People diagnosed with these false positives are dying within 28 days at a rate far, far faster than the normal rate of death (if they were dying just at the "normal" rate for someone picked at random dying within 28 days, the population of the UK would halve in a year)
And, with that amazing series of coincidences, it's actually happening around the world! Almost as if there's a pandemic of a real virus.
It's happening in Austria as well. In Belgium. In Croatia. In the Czech Republic (my God, is it happening in the Czech Republic!). In France. In Hungary. In Ireland. In Italy. In the Netherlands, except they seem to have got the false positives under control by pretending they're real and reacting as if they're real. In Poland. In Portugal. In Spain. In Slovakia (although they've brought it down by really pretending hard that it's real and testing their entire population and isolating all the false positives and for some reason this has prevented the false positives from spreading) In Sweden.
Over the the US, in Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, Georgia... all over the place.
And that's just Europe and the US. My God, how amazingly coincidental it's all been with these false positives magically happening like this?
Where they've done as well as could be expected under the circumstances
- ramping up testing - increasing hospital capacity - being honest about the numbers of infections and dead. They don't seem to have massaged the figures, unlike some countries, nor have they particularly downplayed them. - ordering vaccines in advance. - social distancing. The approach has been broadly sensible, proportionate and consistent with international best practice, though we can all quibble about individual measures.
Where they've done badly
- quarantine. Obviously with 20-20 hindsight it would have been better to impose it in January or February and enforce it, though that probably wasn't politically feasible. But the current compromise of having a quarantine but not really enforcing it hasn't prevented a second wave from Europe but has destroyed the travel industry and been bad for civil liberties. - airport testing. Why do we still not have this, unlike so many other countries? - messaging. Presentation counts, and Boris has not been nearly as slick as, say, Nicola Sturgeon or Angela Merkel. In my view, he was overly gloomy in March, and too optimistic in the summer.
Where their performance defies rational explanation
- tracing, especially the app. I still don't understand why they trusted NHS-X not Apple and Google - moving NHS patients into care homes.
Where the jury is still out
- lockdowns. Do they prevent the spread or just complement social distancing measures already in force? But at least we have avoided the very strict lockdowns in France, Spain and Italy. - PPE procurement. Was it an urgent response to a desperate situation or a way to shovel millions to their mates? Or both? At least we haven't suffered from a shortage of this crucial equipment.
Comments
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party advocated competitive tendering and value for taxpayers money. Now there is no shame in kleptocracy.
I'd guess that political opposition research in the US is likely superior to most information Russian intelligence might have, but the idea isn't impossible.
And I wouldn't entirely dismiss the theory that Trump is a Russian agent of influence, as he certainly has behaved, and continues to behave like one.
The far more parsimonious explanation, though, is that he's just a raging narcissist and sociopath.
Maybe one day we will learn the truth.
And I say that as someone who didn't think enough was provided to allow Starmer to push for Corbyn's expulsion. But despite what you claim it really is neither here nor there what former MPs did.
Labour were also sending list of potential suppliers to the government at the time, and I’m sure many suppliers reached out to anyone they knew who could understand public sector procurement - probably starting with their local MP.
If there’s genuine evidence of corruption - deliberate bad faith or financial backhanders to members of Parliament of government, then I’m all ears for an investigation - but characterising companies referred to NHS procurement through an MP as “their mates” is disengenuous given the situation we faced at the time.
Plenty of time to deal with the thieves and chancers after Covid has been controlled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel
But aiui some of these were just individuals starting a shelf company and saying they could get some?
Well anyone could have done that if they were both overpaid by the govt and not held accountable if they didn't deliver the right goods! Do you really not see the difference?
Now I can understand you don't want a non-Conservative government, but is there ever a point where you think "looking after friends using public money is a bit dodgy"? You quite rightly wouldn't accept it from a Labour government.
And in any event, the likelihood of changing the result was extremely slim.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/17/wayne-county-michigan-election-certification-437181
That will fade once Biden is actually installed, I think, since most voters and nearly all foreign leaders accept that he was elected fairly.
It's a 'we are stupid not malevolent' defence, always a last resort for politicians.
I think you've put it well: desperate times call for desperate measures. If there's issues now when times aren't desperate then that's a different matter, but for companies that stepped up to the plate when we were desperate and helped ensure continuity of supply then I would suggest after the fact that Honours are more appropriate than condemnation!
The more the Republicans go down this "vote fraud" road the more they are alienating middle of the road folk that they need. It seems the Georgia vote count was okay except for that box of two and a half thousand votes that were missed. I always though the Electoral Officer had to certify the number of votes cast at the polling stations with the number at the end of the count.
I also think that automatically characterising such arrangements as various types of bad, to make party-political points and without any evidence of actual wrongdoing, is wrong.
From the CNN story linked to above, it appears that sort of stuff was already going on.
...Edith Lee-Payne, who worked as a supervisor of poll workers at the TCF Center in Detroit where the city's absentee ballots were counted, laid out the step-by-step process of how absentee ballots were counted, hoping to discredit any suggestions of fraud.
She shared that at one point a Republican poll challenger approached her in a way that made her afraid for her life...
This may come as a shock to you but I believe getting PPE during a pandemic is looking after doctors and nurses like our very own good doctor Foxy who has in his own words called the situation in the spring "desperate".
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normal times of course absolutely have different standards.
https://results.decisiondeskhq.com
Trump received every treatment available, together with photo-opportunities and even outings to wave to his supporters.
https://twitter.com/whoopsadaisy17/status/1328751771683065856
https://twitter.com/sainsburys/status/1327506558322880514?s=20
The leader was putting in a new system that would impartially investigate these matters - instead a politicised NEC has expedited this in order to clear someone they like politically interfering with the disciplinary decision and bypassing the disciplinary decision making.
By allowing the NEC to expedite this and make a political rather than impartial decision it is again being politicised. This is exactly what the EHRC was warning against continuing.
The leader preventing both himself and the NEC from interfering and allowing a proper disciplinary investigation to occur would be following the EHRC's recommendations.
It will be very interesting to see what results they report next week.
https://twitter.com/DanLarremore/status/1328487321180590080
Also twee and patronising as fck, btw. It sounds as if he wants the Labour party to be a sort of Hedgehog Hotel, only for Jews, where they can be wrapped in cotton wool and fed warm milk through an eyedropper.
BTW don't do that, milk is bad for hedgehogs.
No one disputes the need for PPE, but when you dig down to find that PPE was procured by an American jewellery designer with, it seems, no prior experience, via a Spanish middle man both of whom made millions, it doesn't look right.
You would be outraged if this had gone on during Blair's Premiership, and you would be right.
The British government's first disaster of 2021? A food shortage
Do you really want to open that door? Find one racist labour member and suddenly labour could not criticise Tory racists either, and that would not be reasonable.
Or who attacked others for suggesting PPE production could be ramped up at home, or others (including a pb header) calling for the appointment of a PPE tsar by analogy with the wartime minister of production.
Yes, something had to be done. Indeed, something was done. That is to the government's credit. Funny how so much of this something transferred wodges of cash to friends of Conservatives. That's the part that smacks of corruption.
https://twitter.com/sainsburys/status/1328027300563214340?s=21
The suggestion in the various reports into this is that after the initial emergency short supply had passed is that large contracts have been awarded to chums without tender and in some cases with little or nothing to show or it.
Emergency procurement during an emergency? Understandable. Using that emergency as excuse to carry on lining the pockets of chums? Not acceptable.
In the words of Foxy in the first half of the year we were "desperate" for PPE. We got PPE. Job done, well done. As our resident expert on the NHS I am happy to defer to Foxy's expertise on the desperation of the situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Since we're not desperate now if contracts are getting signed now that aren't going through proper procedures that would be a different matter. But not during the first half of the year.
But if they have supplied the PPE then job done.
The more interesting question is why there isn't greater downside from acting so crazy.
Considering there was no global pandemic going on during Blair's Premiership then yes there would have been no reason for such desperation during Blair's years. There was a global pandemic in the Spring.
I didn't even notice the colour of the actors or think it as relevant.
For a non-racist white individual there is absolutely no problem with seeing a black family having relatable Christmas experiences.
It's that they ignored procurement rules to give money to their mates.
Many of whom obviously, obviously had no prior experience with making, supplying or distributing PPE.
And if contracts aren't published, you never will.
- The virus is considerably deadlier than believed and the true IFR must be quite a bit higher than the 0.8%-0.9% indicated by dividing the deaths by the ONS-indicated infections 19 days prior.
- The number of people who have had covid and recovered (and thus the distance travelled towards herd immunity) is a lot less than believed.
- The "Great Barrington Declaration" would therefore take even longer than our own fears and garner a truly staggering death toll if ever pursued.
Those three points can't be wrong if the contention that the infection rate is a lot lower than indicated by current testing through the ONS survey (not opinion; arithmetic: decrease the denominator and the size of the fraction calculated must increase).
If, say, false positives amount to half of the whole, then the IFR is 1.6%-1.8%. And the number of people who have been infected so far is 3 million to 4 million; to get to herd immunity via infection would take ten to fifteen times as many, and therefore incur 600,000 - 900,000 deaths in the UK alone.
I'm not completely convinced that's the message that Tice, Young, Farage, and their mates at lockdownsceptics want us to take away, but that's arithmetic.
As a bonus, Trump might ram through executive orders to give Republicans some raw meat in his last two months.
But mainly reselection.
And if you raised your gaze just a little, you'd realise that renewables are becoming the cheapest form of energy worldwide.
(Oops, sorry, "claimed" that there would be no second wave)
Yeadon claims that 70%+ of us are already immune.
(Which would mean herd immunity is already present and that the R rate would be sub-1.0 even if we went back to normal. Oops, sorry, "claimed" that, a month or so ago, before we started declaring nearly 600 covid deaths in one day from infections that occurred after his claim)
Yeadon claims that false positives flood the system, despite the test capability increasing by a factor of three, the number of tests by a factor of 5, and the number of positives by a factor of 50 (so, how many of the 400 positives recorded per day in July were false? We'd need several thousand of those 400 to be false... how exactly does that work)
Yeadon effectively claims, if false positives flood the system, that the true IFR is actually close to 2% and thus following the Great Barrington Declaration would involve burying something close to a million people.
So - dividing five thousand thousands by fifty thousands and getting one thousandth????
I hope he doesn't do his own accounts.
One more time: AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
- False positives have spiked for some unknown reason, spreading almost like a virus
- People are turning up at hospital with false positivity about ten days delayed from the spread of false positives
- People are dying about twenty days after the increased spread in false positives, with the rate of dying continuing to climb and now very visible in excess deaths
- People diagnosed with these false positives are dying within 28 days at a rate far, far faster than the normal rate of death (if they were dying just at the "normal" rate for someone picked at random dying within 28 days, the population of the UK would halve in a year)
And, with that amazing series of coincidences, it's actually happening around the world! Almost as if there's a pandemic of a real virus.
It's happening in Austria as well.
In Belgium.
In Croatia.
In the Czech Republic (my God, is it happening in the Czech Republic!).
In France.
In Hungary.
In Ireland.
In Italy.
In the Netherlands, except they seem to have got the false positives under control by pretending they're real and reacting as if they're real.
In Poland.
In Portugal.
In Spain.
In Slovakia (although they've brought it down by really pretending hard that it's real and testing their entire population and isolating all the false positives and for some reason this has prevented the false positives from spreading)
In Sweden.
Over the the US, in Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, Georgia... all over the place.
And that's just Europe and the US. My God, how amazingly coincidental it's all been with these false positives magically happening like this?
Where they've done as well as could be expected under the circumstances
- ramping up testing
- increasing hospital capacity
- being honest about the numbers of infections and dead. They don't seem to have massaged the figures, unlike some countries, nor have they particularly downplayed them.
- ordering vaccines in advance.
- social distancing. The approach has been broadly sensible, proportionate and consistent with international best practice, though we can all quibble about individual measures.
Where they've done badly
- quarantine. Obviously with 20-20 hindsight it would have been better to impose it in January or February and enforce it, though that probably wasn't politically feasible. But the current compromise of having a quarantine but not really enforcing it hasn't prevented a second wave from Europe but has destroyed the travel industry and been bad for civil liberties.
- airport testing. Why do we still not have this, unlike so many other countries?
- messaging. Presentation counts, and Boris has not been nearly as slick as, say, Nicola Sturgeon or Angela Merkel. In my view, he was overly gloomy in March, and too optimistic in the summer.
Where their performance defies rational explanation
- tracing, especially the app. I still don't understand why they trusted NHS-X not Apple and Google
- moving NHS patients into care homes.
Where the jury is still out
- lockdowns. Do they prevent the spread or just complement social distancing measures already in force? But at least we have avoided the very strict lockdowns in France, Spain and Italy.
- PPE procurement. Was it an urgent response to a desperate situation or a way to shovel millions to their mates? Or both? At least we haven't suffered from a shortage of this crucial equipment.