Ironically, both the SNP and Conservatives have benefited from a system set up by Labour to give themselves and the Lib Dems a permanent majority.
IIRC, the LDs were complicit in that - I seem to recall Dewar and Wallace sniggering about it, metaphorically but also in a real sense (the understanding being that there would be a permanent Lab-LD coalition to keep the nasty SNP out). So if that memory is right, you are even righter about it being an irony of political history!
Will it be possible to do leading edge science with both the US & China? I'd assume we have to choose?
In most areas, yes. (Admittedly not in some areas of technology).
After all, which country trained most of the Professors in top Chinese Universities (like Tsinghua or Shanghai)? The US.
The Chinese scientific community is very much indebted (at a personal level) to the US. Chinese scientists very much want to be involved with Western scientific projects, especially US/UK (most Chinese scientists speak English).
And indeed, the best hope of avoiding serious international tensions is through these kinds of personal contact in science (and the arts, and culture, and through exchange of peoples).
I think you could easily argue that a program of exchange with China is **more** important from a global perspective than, say, Germany or France.
And the Chinese would not be demanding a net cost of 3 billion. It would be done on a more equitable basis.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
For those who fear the break-up of the UK, the positive message that emerges from these focus groups is that support for independence is built on sand: it’s reliant on what appears to be blind faith in Nicola Sturgeon preventing voters engaging with the economic realities.
It’s telling that when it comes to fiscal reality, we didn’t find potential Yes voters accepting their veracity but shrugging their shoulders (as we might have expected) – they simply refused to believe that the facts could be true.
It can be argued, then, that Scotland does not so much have an uninformed electorate as one that has been very skilfully fed misinformation. There is little political gain to be had from telling people that they have been misled – but finding trusted message carriers who can present facts in an accessible manner might help these voters work it out for themselves.
Red Bull seem belatedly reluctant to ditch him relatively soon, but they should. Either Perez or Hulkenberg would be much more assured and they'd both jump at the chance.
I disagree a bit on the strongest universities, it's not quite that clear cut on a project by project basis - yes, ETH Zurich is excellent and many UK universities are too, but there are also very strong universities in Germany in particular. As with anything, the strongest departments are scattered - for one project we absolutely wanted to work with Stockholm, mainly because of one person, but I'm not sure they're big hitters generally (neither are we, in many areas).
I agree on Germany.
Of course, in Germany most of the research is not done in the Universities, but via the Max Planck Society. So my phraseology -- carefully chosen -- cunningly omitted the main strength of German scientific research. 😁
Wow, just in. Email offer from the Speccy. £12 for 12 weeks of the the mag and get a free bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label worth £30. Which I like and would drink. So that's paying me an effective hard cash £18 to read the thoughts of Toby Young & Co every week for the next 3 months. It's a no brainer! Not doing it.
Wow, just in. Email offer from the Speccy. £12 for 12 weeks of the the mag and get a free bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label worth £30. Which I like and would drink. So that's paying me an effective hard cash £18 to read the thoughts of Toby Young & Co every week for the next 3 months. It's a no brainer! Not doing it.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Thank you for the detailed reply. I don't have experience of Polish or Czech collaborations, but worked on some projects with Hungarian and Slovakian collaborators. They were positive (but of course, they'd successfully won grants - there will have been winners and losers, no doubt).
I agree about admin/paperwork. The EU projects always had a lot more paper shuffling/reports than the domestically funded ones. There are also some largely parasitical 'technology transfer' companies that contract consultants on projects and take a nice cut off the top (I was a consultant on one project via one of those - I thought I was getting well paid until I found out what they were getting paid to pay me).
I disagree a bit on the strongest universities, it's not quite that clear cut on a project by project basis - yes, ETH Zurich is excellent and many UK universities are too, but there are also very strong universities in Germany in particular. As with anything, the strongest departments are scattered - for one project we absolutely wanted to work with Stockholm, mainly because of one person, but I'm not sure they're big hitters generally (neither are we, in many areas).
I agree that countries do not have friends, they have interests. It's no surprise to me that there's an attempt to shaft the UK, the EU negotiating side would be a bit rubbish if they didn't try that. As with everything else, it's a judgement on how much we need them versus how much they need us (and possibly a misjudgement, we will see). The UK does have a relatively strong hand here, so I hope it plays it well.
I'll say one thing about EU funding: the overheads are typically pretty anemic. In my institution, in overhead-heavy departments, they are rather discouraged because they don't bring in enough. Good for the academic grant holder, no doubt, but not great for the department.
In some circles there would be rejoicing if EU funding were substituted by some kind of hypothetical UK replacement that paid full economic costs... Of course nobody really expects such a substitute to turn up in full.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
I see that they've appointed Neil Oliver to their board. Boss move!
It was a bit like seeing an Uintatherium, or Gordon Brown, come back to life and make an Intervention, I agree.
I didn't know about NO. Must make a change from looking after Bannockburn Field and Drummossie Muir and pumping out lots of pro-indy propaganda Braveheart-style.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Downing Street said there were 'no plans' to have the Union flag printed on the Oxford University and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, following reports that Number 10's 'Union Unit' had asked for the British flag to appear on packaging.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'There are no plans for the Union Jack to be on doses.
And of course we will more than likely see US, German and EU flags on the packaging of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but people won't get upset by that.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
Maybe Martin Luther King was right, that we should look at people based on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.
Do you think Martin Luther King would be (i) out protesting against racist policing or (ii) arguing against such protests on the grounds they are inflammatory?
Folk trying to retrospectively portray MLK as some kind of centrist concilliator are weird.
A. He wasn't.
B. Even if he was, the James Earl Ray factor doesn't really suggest that that was a fruitful path to take.
It is strange imo to invoke him on the side of those arguing that BLM are worse than the racism they organize protests against. I doubt he'd be comfortable with that unless he would today consider his Dream to have been realized. Which I can't see that he would.
Can anyone recommend a decent book on/biography of Jan Smuts?
I read a great book recently written from a Dutch perspective about the Boer wars. A book by Martin Bossenbroek called the Boer War. Not what you want of course, but I'd recommend it. Hardly light reading either.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
Some interesting stuff - published two days ago:
In his stimulating The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019), the LSE professor Christopher Coker sketches how those nation states who also see themselves as civilisations – China, Russia and the US above all others – define themselves. These ascribed virtues include social solidarity, popular values, a history of upright and noble leaders, opposition to “savage” capitalism and to the moral vacuity of other states – in the case of these civilisational states, Europe.
Scots nationalists share a belief in most of these civilisational traits for a future independent Scotland. They define it, not against the European Union, which they revere, but against England – and think, like the presidents of China, Russia and the US, that theirs is a more moral country. It’s tacitly an argument that Scotland is a different civilisation.
Like the civilisational states, Scots nationalist leaders buttress their claims to civilisational status by cultivating popular resentment against past humiliations.
I disagree a bit on the strongest universities, it's not quite that clear cut on a project by project basis - yes, ETH Zurich is excellent and many UK universities are too, but there are also very strong universities in Germany in particular. As with anything, the strongest departments are scattered - for one project we absolutely wanted to work with Stockholm, mainly because of one person, but I'm not sure they're big hitters generally (neither are we, in many areas).
I agree on Germany.
Of course, in Germany most of the research is not done in the Universities, but via the Max Planck Society. So my phraseology -- carefully chosen -- cunningly omitted the main strength of German scientific research. 😁
The Max Planck approach is very interesting. Large guaranteed funding for really big world changing projects for upto 10 years, allows for longer term thinking about a problem, but there are issues with those under the lead being a bit stuck as there is no real route of promotion.
Downing Street said there were 'no plans' to have the Union flag printed on the Oxford University and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, following reports that Number 10's 'Union Unit' had asked for the British flag to appear on packaging.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'There are no plans for the Union Jack to be on doses.
And of course we will more than likely see US, German and EU flags on the packaging of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but people won't get upset by that.
Doesn't mean it was fake news - just that someone had a bright idea and put it out and someone else disagreed.
Of course some people are allergic to food colourings.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
I see that they've appointed Neil Oliver to their board. Boss move!
It was a bit like seeing an Uintatherium, or Gordon Brown, come back to life and make an Intervention, I agree.
I didn't know about NO. Must make a change from looking after Bannockburn Field and Drummossie Muir and pumping out lots of pro-indy propaganda Braveheart-style.
It's Oliver's libertarian, anti-lockdown stuff that I find a bit weird, though maybe it's the company he keeps.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man, perhaps he's the trusted message carrier that will stop credulous Nats being misled by the virulently pro Indy press, state broadcaster and assorted other media.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
If it's essentially the same criticism levelled at the same kind of protests on the same issue then it's worth pointing out. The point is that it's not uncommon for protests viewed at the time as either counterproductive or being directed by some sinister forces to be judged more favorably by history. I have little doubt that the BLM protests fall into that category.
Downing Street said there were 'no plans' to have the Union flag printed on the Oxford University and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, following reports that Number 10's 'Union Unit' had asked for the British flag to appear on packaging.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'There are no plans for the Union Jack to be on doses.
And of course we will more than likely see US, German and EU flags on the packaging of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but people won't get upset by that.
Yep, it's the defining characteristic of the BJ government that its word is its bond. If it says it didn't happen, it definitely, definitely didn't happen.
2020 started off Shi'ite and it is now going to end Shi'ite.
Will Paddy Power price it up ?
CIA, Mossad, Saudi, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Russia, Turkey all in the running here.
Side bet - False flag operation for any of the above
I was amused at the BBC article not making any explicit comment as to who may had done it, but ending with an apparent non-sequitur on Netanyahu having mentioned the scientist by name in a 2018 speech about Iran's nuclear program.
I would be somewhat surprised if there had been no communication about it between Netanyahu and the White House. Prior to the event.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
Some interesting stuff - published two days ago:
In his stimulating The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019), the LSE professor Christopher Coker sketches how those nation states who also see themselves as civilisations – China, Russia and the US above all others – define themselves. These ascribed virtues include social solidarity, popular values, a history of upright and noble leaders, opposition to “savage” capitalism and to the moral vacuity of other states – in the case of these civilisational states, Europe.
Scots nationalists share a belief in most of these civilisational traits for a future independent Scotland. They define it, not against the European Union, which they revere, but against England – and think, like the presidents of China, Russia and the US, that theirs is a more moral country. It’s tacitly an argument that Scotland is a different civilisation.
Like the civilisational states, Scots nationalist leaders buttress their claims to civilisational status by cultivating popular resentment against past humiliations.
But, as any fule kno, the Scots were indeed a Chosen People with a Covenant with the Lord. It's the absolute foundation concept of Scots history since the Reformation! And indeed that Covenant was defined and defended not so much against England but against the Stuart, and later British, momarchy and ascendancy (so that essay is (as usual for such folk) carefully conflating England, Britain and the UK to its purposes). The Wars of the Covenant, from 1642 to 1746, refer, as does the Disruptiuon of the Kirk of 1843 as a result of intolerable interference by a UK establishment which permitted the Monarch to rule the Church of England through an episcopal hierarchy!
Law, Universities, and so on, were also all different, on grounds that seemed and seem good to those involved. And still are.
The other sneaky conflation in that essay is that it is carefully unclear about whether Coker is saying that [edit] about the Scots, and confers a spurious authority on itself. If I were editing that as an academic paper I woiuld put a great red comment on the TS to that effect.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
I see that they've appointed Neil Oliver to their board. Boss move!
It was a bit like seeing an Uintatherium, or Gordon Brown, come back to life and make an Intervention, I agree.
I didn't know about NO. Must make a change from looking after Bannockburn Field and Drummossie Muir and pumping out lots of pro-indy propaganda Braveheart-style.
It's Oliver's libertarian, anti-lockdown stuff that I find a bit weird, though maybe it's the company he keeps.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man, perhaps he's the trusted message carrier that will stop credulous Nats being misled by the virulently pro Indy press, state broadcaster and assorted other media.
OH no - not a lockdown denier as well?! There is only so much one can take.
I disagree a bit on the strongest universities, it's not quite that clear cut on a project by project basis - yes, ETH Zurich is excellent and many UK universities are too, but there are also very strong universities in Germany in particular. As with anything, the strongest departments are scattered - for one project we absolutely wanted to work with Stockholm, mainly because of one person, but I'm not sure they're big hitters generally (neither are we, in many areas).
I agree on Germany.
Of course, in Germany most of the research is not done in the Universities, but via the Max Planck Society. So my phraseology -- carefully chosen -- cunningly omitted the main strength of German scientific research. 😁
The Max Planck approach is very interesting. Large guaranteed funding for really big world changing projects for upto 10 years, allows for longer term thinking about a problem, but there are issues with those under the lead being a bit stuck as there is no real route of promotion.
It is the German way.
You are either Herr Direktor und Professor or you are an Unterling.
Or you leave after a few years.
As I started this by talking about the failure of the EU in Eastern European science, it is worth pointing out that the Germans did everything right in East Germany. They created scientific institutes in East Germany to persuade the East German scientists it was worthwhile staying. There are 3 Max Planck Institutes in Leipzig alone.
The EU could have done that in all the former Eastern Block countries.
These Islands is still going? Thank goodness, its near invisibility made me fear the worst.
Some interesting stuff - published two days ago:
In his stimulating The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019), the LSE professor Christopher Coker sketches how those nation states who also see themselves as civilisations – China, Russia and the US above all others – define themselves. These ascribed virtues include social solidarity, popular values, a history of upright and noble leaders, opposition to “savage” capitalism and to the moral vacuity of other states – in the case of these civilisational states, Europe.
Scots nationalists share a belief in most of these civilisational traits for a future independent Scotland. They define it, not against the European Union, which they revere, but against England – and think, like the presidents of China, Russia and the US, that theirs is a more moral country. It’s tacitly an argument that Scotland is a different civilisation.
Like the civilisational states, Scots nationalist leaders buttress their claims to civilisational status by cultivating popular resentment against past humiliations.
It is very true. Celtic nationalism is by definition "good", the Scots are noble unselfish people, the English are self-centred snobs etc etc. While Celts don't always have a problem with individual English people, they see the concept of Englishness and England itself as inherently a bad thing. True of much of the left and liberal commentariat in England too. Orwell had a good line on it in the Lion and the Unicorn.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Why are you surprised that the EU is looking after its own interests?
I am not surprised. I expected it.
It is the leaders of Universities UK or the Royal Society or Scientists for the EU who are surprised that -- as they see it -- "their friends" are shafting them.
As you would discover, if you read the original link. Here it is again:
The phrase "their friends" doesn't appear in the article, and it is blindingly obvious that the shafting is being done by our own government in withdrawing from the EU in the first place.
It was evident from the start that Brexit would be a disaster for British science, which is why the overwhelming majority of scientists were remainers. Your attempts to blame those who campaigned to stay in the EU for the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU are, frankly, bizarre.
I have merely said that if a science deal transfers a net 3 billion pounds of the UK science budget to Europe, it is a bad deal for UK science.
That is a net loss of 3 billion pounds to UK science. That is many, many UK science jobs lost.
Better than signing that deal is to organise our own schemes for collaboration with Europe (or Asia or the US). It could be done easily, and administered cheaply (much more cheaply than the EU's scheme).
As a scientist, I try not to use blustering phrases like ... "blindingly obvious" ... or "evident from the start" ... without providing some proof.
You have to prove "the obvious" and "the evident" time and time again. That is the very essence of this thing that we call science.
Depends. If the value of networking and easy collaboration with the Euroscience ecosystem is more than 3 billion pounds, then it's an expensive deal, but not a bad one. And I'm not in a position to judge whether that's the case or not. My guess is that it's right at the top of the range of plausible valuations, but not off the top of the scale.
But it parallels what we've seen with the trade negotiations. The EU values access to their market highly, and are expecting the UK to pay full whack. What did we expect them to do?
I would say say that there is some value to networking with European Union countries, but we could organise some of the networks ourselves.
There are many, many premier science countries outwith the EU (Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, the US, Canada, Switzerland).
We are where we are -- the job of UK science leaders is not to mourn over the lost referendum, but to plan the future trajectory for the greatest good of UK science..
If the EU set the cost as high as 3 billion, then we are better off looking to build connections with the wealthiest global science communities -- the US & increasingly China.
Perhaps. And maybe the UK should actually walk, rather than just going on about it.
But if I were working for the other side, one of the questions I'd want to understand is "how much would it cost the other side to walk away?" I don't know the numbers any more than I suspect you do- but if you told me that the cost of that (reconfiguring our science networks to other countries) was more than the cost of continuing with Horizon, I wouldn't be shocked.
It's the size problem (again). If you're in Germany and looking to put together a project on X then, for EU funding, you have the choice of all the countries in the scheme for collaboration. Your first choice might be a group in the UK, maybe even your second and third, but there's very likely to be a good choice in the scheme countries (without UK). If you're in the UK, you may be more pushed for a good choice also in the UK, simply because there are fewer collaborators to choose from. One solution is of course to develop the lacking capacity in the UK.
Working with the US/China is of course a viable option (and already happens, of course). It is however a bit of a pain in some ways (meeting in person less convenient, remote meeting harder due to big time zone differences - I speak from experience).
There's clearly a point at which payment into an EU scheme is not worth the money. Where that point is depends on how much of the pot of funding would be won by the UK and what the non-funding benefits are. There's also the issue of potential loss of expertise and the long-term costs of that. For EU-nationals (and even some UK-nationals and non-EU/UK nationals as good scientists normally don't have too much trouble getting work visas) the simplest route to continuing long-standing collaborations and continuing to get funding for those collaborations may be to relocate to an EU country, taking other funding (not tied to country, e.g. industry/international NGO) with them.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
Not to mention the establishment of Upper Clyde Shipyards.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
So you'd be less uncomfortable with a mass protest against racism if Nick Clegg had sent out the flyers?
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
Free Bird is awesome. That guitar solo. Despite your superior ability to spell you clearly understand nothing. (The Allman Brothers Band is better though).
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
C'mon, Freebird was one of the highlights of The Old Grey Whistle Test new year shows. Helps if you're fourteen mind.
Wow, just in. Email offer from the Speccy. £12 for 12 weeks of the the mag and get a free bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label worth £30. Which I like and would drink. So that's paying me an effective hard cash £18 to read the thoughts of Toby Young & Co every week for the next 3 months. It's a no brainer! Not doing it.
But you don't need to read it - my paper recycling bin is by the front door, to save £18 I would happily remove the plastic, throw the magazine straight in the recycling and bin the plastic.
Johnnie Walker Black though - I would need Blue Label or a decent single malt as a minimum.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Why are you surprised that the EU is looking after its own interests?
I am not surprised. I expected it.
It is the leaders of Universities UK or the Royal Society or Scientists for the EU who are surprised that -- as they see it -- "their friends" are shafting them.
As you would discover, if you read the original link. Here it is again:
The phrase "their friends" doesn't appear in the article, and it is blindingly obvious that the shafting is being done by our own government in withdrawing from the EU in the first place.
It was evident from the start that Brexit would be a disaster for British science, which is why the overwhelming majority of scientists were remainers. Your attempts to blame those who campaigned to stay in the EU for the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU are, frankly, bizarre.
I have merely said that if a science deal transfers a net 3 billion pounds of the UK science budget to Europe, it is a bad deal for UK science.
That is a net loss of 3 billion pounds to UK science. That is many, many UK science jobs lost.
Better than signing that deal is to organise our own schemes for collaboration with Europe (or Asia or the US). It could be done easily, and administered cheaply (much more cheaply than the EU's scheme).
As a scientist, I try not to use blustering phrases like ... "blindingly obvious" ... or "evident from the start" ... without providing some proof.
You have to prove "the obvious" and "the evident" time and time again. That is the very essence of this thing that we call science.
If you were really a scientist, you'd know that there is no such thing as proof in science. You sound more like a bullshitter to me.
Comes to something when you get questioned on internet forums for asserting that you're a scientist Not that you're rich, successful, have lots of sexual partners/a young beautiful partner, are an award winning novelist, frequently lunch with the Queen or have the ear of Mr Johnson...
When/why did people start falsely claiming to be scientists to garner internet kudos? Asking as an international spy, er... I mean scientist
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
Yes, some mistakes - but he was spot on on the Jim Davidson censorship.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Wow, just in. Email offer from the Speccy. £12 for 12 weeks of the the mag and get a free bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label worth £30. Which I like and would drink. So that's paying me an effective hard cash £18 to read the thoughts of Toby Young & Co every week for the next 3 months. It's a no brainer! Not doing it.
But you don't need to read it - my paper recycling bin is by the front door, to save £18 I would happily remove the plastic, throw the magazine straight in the recycling and bin the plastic.
Johnnie Walker Black though - I would need Blue Label or a decent single malt as a minimum.
Yes and no. There's ample evidence that big deals with the EU are resolved with last minute fudge, and not an instant beforehand, but comments about it probably aren't about stage management of any expected outcome just that the negotiators feel they have to justify achieving nothing for months on end so they say something about progress or gaps remaining to fill space.
Yes and no. There's ample evidence that big deals with the EU are resolved with last minute fudge, and not an instant beforehand, but comments about it probably aren't about stage management of any expected outcome just that the negotiators feel they have to justify achieving nothing for months on end so they say something about progress or gaps remaining to fill space.
But this is the last minute. Realistically a deal will have to be done next week if it is to be in place by New Year.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Karl didn't have a sister called Onya. Groucho did, though, and she featured in A Day at the Races, which is where the starting pistol came from.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
You are right to use the past tense there. Attitudes in Wolverhampton have moved on a long way.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Ydoethur has just felt a great disturbance in the Force.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
Those extremists seek to coopt any other movements and attention, so I hope they get short shrift from those only concerned about the main thrust of protests.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
C'mon, Freebird was one of the highlights of the Old Grey Whistle Test new year shows. Helps if you're fourteen mind.
A great track but a bugbear of uni life for me. Student discos, loiter and get some drinks down, looking ironic, suavely approach a girl at the end for a "slow dance", get the nod and that comes on. Starts smoochy and romantic, very much so, but then, couple of minutes in, just as you are making progress, the epic guitar solo crashes in and it's heavy metal all the way to the end. Tough choice then. Carry on in the clinch and look a bit ridiculous, or separate and start head banging away and risk losing the mood entirely.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
So you'd be less uncomfortable with a mass protest against racism if Nick Clegg had sent out the flyers?
There's clearly a point at which payment into an EU scheme is not worth the money. Where that point is depends on how much of the pot of funding would be won by the UK and what the non-funding benefits are. There's also the issue of potential loss of expertise and the long-term costs of that. For EU-nationals (and even some UK-nationals and non-EU/UK nationals as good scientists normally don't have too much trouble getting work visas) the simplest route to continuing long-standing collaborations and continuing to get funding for those collaborations may be to relocate to an EU country, taking other funding (not tied to country, e.g. industry/international NGO) with them.
Ah ... surely, if you are Vice Chancellor at the University of Vilnius or Maynooth or Prague (some country that doesn't get much research funding from the EU), then it is a no brainer.
You must invite a UK academic to a Visiting Professorship.
You won't have to pay the UK scientist much (if anything) -- *** because the UK scientist gains the right to apply for EU grants from your European institution ***
The UK Scientist benefits from the grants. The University in Vilnius or Maynooth or Prague benefits from the overheads on the grants.
In fact, we are all so used to doing science by zoom now, no-one need ever have to physically go to Vilnius or Maynooth in person (I am happy to go to Prague).
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
You are right to use the past tense there. Attitudes in Wolverhampton have moved on a long way.
I'm sure they have. As Dr King said, the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
C'mon, Freebird was one of the highlights of the Old Grey Whistle Test new year shows. Helps if you're fourteen mind.
A great track but a bugbear of uni life for me. Student discos, loiter and get some drinks down, looking ironic, suavely approach a girl at the end for a "slow dance", get the nod and that comes on. Starts smoochy and romantic, very much so, but then, couple of minutes in, just as you are making progress, the epic guitar solo crashes in and it's heavy metal all the way to the end. Tough choice then. Carry on in the clinch and look a bit ridiculous, or separate and start head banging away and risk losing the mood entirely.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
For those who fear the break-up of the UK, the positive message that emerges from these focus groups is that support for independence is built on sand: it’s reliant on what appears to be blind faith in Nicola Sturgeon preventing voters engaging with the economic realities.
It’s telling that when it comes to fiscal reality, we didn’t find potential Yes voters accepting their veracity but shrugging their shoulders (as we might have expected) – they simply refused to believe that the facts could be true.
It can be argued, then, that Scotland does not so much have an uninformed electorate as one that has been very skilfully fed misinformation. There is little political gain to be had from telling people that they have been misled – but finding trusted message carriers who can present facts in an accessible manner might help these voters work it out for themselves.
If that is so, I'm not sure 'finding trusted message carriers' would get the job done. Once people have fixed on a position so intensely to the point contrary facts are irrelevant, the messenger becomes as irrelevant as the message.
With economic realities they would only become apparent after the fact so even if it's true, people would only find out afterwards.
(and yes, the other side will claim it is not true anyway)
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
So you'd be less uncomfortable with a mass protest against racism if Nick Clegg had sent out the flyers?
Probably would, yes
Right. I'll DM him and get back to you. And if he's too busy with Facebook we'll try Sir Vince Cable. Either way - mass demo against racism organized by a Liberal Democrat here we come!
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philsophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
And BLM is quite an easy one. We know enough about what Marx thought about police forces in general, and about the plight of black Americans, to be able to join the dots on his behalf.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
So you'd be less uncomfortable with a mass protest against racism if Nick Clegg had sent out the flyers?
Probably would, yes
Right. I'll DM him and get back to you. And if he's too busy with Facebook we'll try Sir Vince Cable. Either way - mass demo against racism organized by a Liberal Democrat here we come!
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
C'mon, Freebird was one of the highlights of the Old Grey Whistle Test new year shows. Helps if you're fourteen mind.
A great track but a bugbear of uni life for me. Student discos, loiter and get some drinks down, looking ironic, suavely approach a girl at the end for a "slow dance", get the nod and that comes on. Starts smoochy and romantic, very much so, but then, couple of minutes in, just as you are making progress, the epic guitar solo crashes in and it's heavy metal all the way to the end. Tough choice then. Carry on in the clinch and look a bit ridiculous, or separate and start head banging away and risk losing the mood entirely.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philsophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
And BLM is quite an easy one. We know enough about what Marx thought about police forces in general, and about the plight of black Americans, to be able to join the dots on his behalf.
It just seems an odd way of looking at it to me. People disagree about what it means to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Marxist, and some of those who do might well be far removed from what the founders of those creeds may have thought, so it doesn't really matter what Marx may have thought. Plenty of people call themselves socialists or classical liberals or whatever and probably aren't if you analyse their views against various definitions, but the self identification is quite important. Someone claiming they are X may not represent the mainstream of X, but that they claim that identity is worthy of note.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
Yes. Communism and an attack by the Federal Government on State Rights. These were George Wallace's lines of attack against Black Civil Rights in his "Anti Dream" speech which I listened to a couple of months ago out of curiosity. A powerful orator. Touch of the Deep South Enochs there.
"In Birmingham they love the Governor" as Lynerd Skynerd say... And in Wolverhampton they loved Enoch. In fact they loved him pretty much everywhere - 74% agreed with his Rivers of Blood speech.
Lynyrd Skynyrd please.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
C'mon, Freebird was one of the highlights of the Old Grey Whistle Test new year shows. Helps if you're fourteen mind.
A great track but a bugbear of uni life for me. Student discos, loiter and get some drinks down, looking ironic, suavely approach a girl at the end for a "slow dance", get the nod and that comes on. Starts smoochy and romantic, very much so, but then, couple of minutes in, just as you are making progress, the epic guitar solo crashes in and it's heavy metal all the way to the end. Tough choice then. Carry on in the clinch and look a bit ridiculous, or separate and start head banging away and risk losing the mood entirely.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Time travelling Karl Marx where he instigated the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Killing Fields and the censoring of Jim Davidson is one of my favourites.
I never realised until today that Karl Marx's sister, Onya, invented the starting pistol.
Am I correct in seeing a fair number of Tier 3 places with an R below 1. And quite a few Tier 2 with R above 1?
When looking at R at the local level, you have to make allowances for actual case levels. You can get some serious distortions with a a small cluster in a place with normally no cases.
R is about the direction of travel - so you can have an R below 1, cases falling, from a previously high level. So you would want to continue severe restrictions until the case level is much lower.
Read in conjunction with the cases scaled to 100k population. And the overall case level. And then read some local information.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1332352325852295168
After all, which country trained most of the Professors in top Chinese Universities (like Tsinghua or Shanghai)? The US.
The Chinese scientific community is very much indebted (at a personal level) to the US. Chinese scientists very much want to be involved with Western scientific projects, especially US/UK (most Chinese scientists speak English).
And indeed, the best hope of avoiding serious international tensions is through these kinds of personal contact in science (and the arts, and culture, and through exchange of peoples).
I think you could easily argue that a program of exchange with China is **more** important from a global perspective than, say, Germany or France.
And the Chinese would not be demanding a net cost of 3 billion. It would be done on a more equitable basis.
Tier 2 - Gastropub
Tier 3 - Bargain Booze & a bench in the park
I see that they've appointed Neil Oliver to their board. Boss move!
It’s telling that when it comes to fiscal reality, we didn’t find potential Yes voters accepting their veracity but shrugging their shoulders (as we might have expected) – they simply refused to believe that the facts could be true.
It can be argued, then, that Scotland does not so much have an uninformed electorate as one that has been very skilfully fed misinformation. There is little political gain to be had from telling people that they have been misled – but finding trusted message carriers who can present facts in an accessible manner might help these voters work it out for themselves.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i363/focus_groups_report.aspx
Red Bull seem belatedly reluctant to ditch him relatively soon, but they should. Either Perez or Hulkenberg would be much more assured and they'd both jump at the chance.
This government is ridiculous. I mean, they just make stuff up as they go along.
Of course, in Germany most of the research is not done in the Universities, but via the Max Planck Society. So my phraseology -- carefully chosen -- cunningly omitted the main strength of German scientific research. 😁
In some circles there would be rejoicing if EU funding were substituted by some kind of hypothetical UK replacement that paid full economic costs... Of course nobody really expects such a substitute to turn up in full.
--AS
I didn't know about NO. Must make a change from looking after Bannockburn Field and Drummossie Muir and pumping out lots of pro-indy propaganda Braveheart-style.
Downing Street said there were 'no plans' to have the Union flag printed on the Oxford University and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, following reports that Number 10's 'Union Unit' had asked for the British flag to appear on packaging.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'There are no plans for the Union Jack to be on doses.
And of course we will more than likely see US, German and EU flags on the packaging of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but people won't get upset by that.
A book by Martin Bossenbroek called the Boer War. Not what you want of course, but I'd recommend it. Hardly light reading either.
In his stimulating The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019), the LSE professor Christopher Coker sketches how those nation states who also see themselves as civilisations – China, Russia and the US above all others – define themselves. These ascribed virtues include social solidarity, popular values, a history of upright and noble leaders, opposition to “savage” capitalism and to the moral vacuity of other states – in the case of these civilisational states, Europe.
Scots nationalists share a belief in most of these civilisational traits for a future independent Scotland. They define it, not against the European Union, which they revere, but against England – and think, like the presidents of China, Russia and the US, that theirs is a more moral country. It’s tacitly an argument that Scotland is a different civilisation.
Like the civilisational states, Scots nationalist leaders buttress their claims to civilisational status by cultivating popular resentment against past humiliations.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i362/is_scotland_a_civilisational_state.aspx
Of course some people are allergic to food colourings.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man, perhaps he's the trusted message carrier that will stop credulous Nats being misled by the virulently pro Indy press, state broadcaster and assorted other media.
The point is that it's not uncommon for protests viewed at the time as either counterproductive or being directed by some sinister forces to be judged more favorably by history. I have little doubt that the BLM protests fall into that category.
Law, Universities, and so on, were also all different, on grounds that seemed and seem good to those involved. And still are.
The other sneaky conflation in that essay is that it is carefully unclear about whether Coker is saying that [edit] about the Scots, and confers a spurious authority on itself. If I were editing that as an academic paper I woiuld put a great red comment on the TS to that effect.
"No....."
You are either Herr Direktor und Professor or you are an Unterling.
Or you leave after a few years.
As I started this by talking about the failure of the EU in Eastern European science, it is worth pointing out that the Germans did everything right in East Germany. They created scientific institutes in East Germany to persuade the East German scientists it was worthwhile staying. There are 3 Max Planck Institutes in Leipzig alone.
The EU could have done that in all the former Eastern Block countries.
Working with the US/China is of course a viable option (and already happens, of course). It is however a bit of a pain in some ways (meeting in person less convenient, remote meeting harder due to big time zone differences - I speak from experience).
There's clearly a point at which payment into an EU scheme is not worth the money. Where that point is depends on how much of the pot of funding would be won by the UK and what the non-funding benefits are. There's also the issue of potential loss of expertise and the long-term costs of that. For EU-nationals (and even some UK-nationals and non-EU/UK nationals as good scientists normally don't have too much trouble getting work visas) the simplest route to continuing long-standing collaborations and continuing to get funding for those collaborations may be to relocate to an EU country, taking other funding (not tied to country, e.g. industry/international NGO) with them.
A band if I don't know if I hate more for Free Bird or love for pretty much everything else.
https://twitter.com/SethN12/status/1332198258211500033?s=20
(The Allman Brothers Band is better though).
Johnnie Walker Black though - I would need Blue Label or a decent single malt as a minimum.
When/why did people start falsely claiming to be scientists to garner internet kudos? Asking as an international spy, er... I mean scientist
I was looking for a good source as to the far more serious Tower Hamlets goings on. There seem to be few factual links.
You must invite a UK academic to a Visiting Professorship.
You won't have to pay the UK scientist much (if anything) -- *** because the UK scientist gains the right to apply for EU grants from your European institution ***
The UK Scientist benefits from the grants. The University in Vilnius or Maynooth or Prague benefits from the overheads on the grants.
In fact, we are all so used to doing science by zoom now, no-one need ever have to physically go to Vilnius or Maynooth in person (I am happy to go to Prague).
There's the loophole. 😁😁😁
With economic realities they would only become apparent after the fact so even if it's true, people would only find out afterwards.
(and yes, the other side will claim it is not true anyway)
x
From case data
From hospital admissions
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1332374559824240645
And quite a few Tier 2 with R above 1?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332352538855747584
R is about the direction of travel - so you can have an R below 1, cases falling, from a previously high level. So you would want to continue severe restrictions until the case level is much lower.
Read in conjunction with the cases scaled to 100k population. And the overall case level. And then read some local information.