Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
Regular cheap mass tests. They aren’t perfect, but they are far better than what we’ve been doing.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
You missed David Gauke off your list. I'd put him in for Morgan who (a) took a peerage instead so she could remain a minister and (b) would have been no great loss.
He stood for election. If I were to add those who stood and lost, but not for their original party, like Gauke, Grieve, Gyriah and Umunna, the cabinet would of course be stronger, but more tenuous on the retaining talent point.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
I agree to a degree that in terms of the wider public, Starmer can bide his time on policies. That said, I do think he needs to do more at this stage to define himself in terms of values, if not yet in terms of detailed policies, if only to ensure that the Tories don't step in and try and define Starmer in a way they would like.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
I agree with you in principle. But I just think, as I said in my post, that even if Starmer made a major speech on values and the country's future, at the moment it just wouldn't get much coverage as all news coverage is bound to be dominated by Covid and Brexit in the short to medium term. I reckon he'll be able to start doing as you suggest from next September, with much more impact and the Tories possibly in disarray.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
I agree to a degree that in terms of the wider public, Starmer can bide his time. That said, I do think he needs to do more at this stage to define himself in terms of values, if not yet in terms of detailed policies, if only to ensure that the Tories don't step in and try and define Starmer in a way they would like.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
Ummmm...it's Labour politicians in Nottingham and Leeds that are pushing most strongly for that Eastern leg to be built. If he called for its abandonment, particularly at the moment it's most under threat, there would be a great deal of fury.
Isn’t it already postponed to 2040 ? I might as well be abandoned.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
I think polling lags. It defies events for a time but then the cumulative effect on opinion suddenly hits dramatically even if not all that much had changed. Witness how May's Tories remained in the lead for an absurd time even as she effectively lost control of her party.
Besides, if you take out the noise of individual polls, it's striking how steady progress of the Conservative to Labour swing has been. In August, the score was about 44-37. Now, it's probably about 38-39, with the rest going to odds and ends. It kicked off with the exam fiasco, but hasn't really stopped since then. A few more months of this, and the government really are in trouble.
If in trouble = well behind in the polls then yes. The same as the vast majority of govts go behind mid term.
What will decide the 2024 election is the impact of Brexit and other govt policies in 2023/4 not opinion polling in 2020/21.
That theory only really works for Maggie- Major collapsed and never recovered, Blair never really went behind, Cameron was flattered by the intra coalition swing.
And Maggie was very frugal with her popularity, using Years 1 and 2 do do unpopular stuff that would pay off. Whereas Boris is unpopular because he's useless and quite nasty.
"Annelise Dodds pulled apart Rishi Sunak’s spending priorities this week."
No, she really didn't. She said he hadn't remotely spent enough. Which is still Labour's core problem. It still has a default setting of requiring the public sector to receive more than the private sector can fund.
Until it addresses that, it will not gain power, as its business model is fundamentally broken.
Ultimately the public sector can only exist in proportion to the wealth generated from the private sector.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
I agree to a degree that in terms of the wider public, Starmer can bide his time. That said, I do think he needs to do more at this stage to define himself in terms of values, if not yet in terms of detailed policies, if only to ensure that the Tories don't step in and try and define Starmer in a way they would like.
However, although you say that in the meantime he can focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems, I think that defining himself would instead help him see off the far left, who are trying to paint him as another Blair in sheep's clothing.
So how about a speech from Starmer harking back to Aneurin Bevan's "religion of socialism is the language of priorities", along the lines that Labour's traditional values are still relevant in a modern age, while using those values to better define the current theme that the Tories are the party of waste and the wrong priorities.
It would probably help to have one early totemic policy to back that broader theme up. I would suggest that scrapping the Eastern wing of HS2 would be it, and launching a consultation on how people along the route would like the £50bn to instead be spent on things that really would help their daily lives. Invest in things that matter for the masses, not the elite. That would provide a very long shopping list of goodies to tempt voters back in all those former red wall seats.
Ummmm...it's Labour politicians in Nottingham and Leeds that are pushing most strongly for that Eastern leg to be built. If he called for its abandonment, particularly at the moment it's most under threat, there would be a great deal of fury.
Isn’t it already postponed to 2040 ? I might as well be abandoned.
And there's a non trivial chance it will be.
That's why he would be unwise to side with the government over it. He'd piss off a lot of influential Labourites for no very good reason.
I would be interested to know his views on whether it should go ahead, given of course he knows Leeds very well. But I suspect he'll keep quiet.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
I’m sure his renowned fidelity and loyalty to his many women will make him do exactly what she wishes.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
Quite. At a certain point the reliance on such for juicy quotes loses its impact from anonymitiy anyway, and they need to have guts and tell the journalist to name them, or shut up. It was a major problem for the anti-Corbynites.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
I hope you are right! We do seem to have done well on vaccines so far, but implementation is a separate challenge to procurement.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
It is easy to jump to conclusions as to where a Covid infection came from. It could have been surface transmission via the bed, or from aerosols - who knows. Seems to me pretty pointless to speculate.
My understanding is that if it was via surface transmission (fomites) then the dose is likely to have been very low and denatured to some degree. Enough for your uncle test positive, but possible of no other significance. Who knows?
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
I hope you are right! We do seem to have done well on vaccines so far, but implementation is a separate challenge to procurement.
If that goes well it will save Johnson. If it doesn’t then he’s beyond toast into some smouldering embers of a loaf of Hovis.
Something Alastair Meeks doesn't seem to appreciate is that over-attacking the Gov't during a pandemic is bad form. It would go down like a lead balloon in the country and the newspapers would soon turn on Labour for doing so.
The time will come and patience is required, the exact opposite of what Meeks with no justification states.
Opposition during a crisis like a pandemic is a bloody difficult job. There’s a need to be supportive and constructive, simply opposing everything the government does goes down badly as you note.
(Say it quietly, but the U.K. government response has actually been good by international standards. The levels of support for those affected have been high, the testing programme is now working well and the UK has more early options for vaccines than just about anywhere else).
Starmer has been pretty invisible so far, but he’s doing good work sorting out his internal party issues. He will have better opportunities over Brexit, where there’s likely to be some disruption in the new years that he’ll be easier to pin on the government.
The opposition job is indeed difficult, but sometimes an opposition should make stands. Even if it was unlikely to change government policy, Starmer could, for instance have made more of Johnson’s repeated insistence that reopening schools was 100% safe. It clearly wasn’t.
What would be the point of complaining about that? Of course schools are a transmission vector, but the various levels of lockdown across the UK have proven that the virus can be controlled while keeping the schools open. Is the Labour leader supposed to argue for closing the schools in order to keep the pubs open?
He could, in all seriousness, argue that actually the sheer level of disruption caused by the virus in schools means that alternatives to full reopening can and should be sought.
He could also have made more of Nick Gibbs' recent dishonesty over the 0.2% claim. Gibb did, in fact, state that it was '0.2% with a confirmed case,' but this isn't a get out for three very good reasons. One, it still isn't correct. The actual figure is 2.2% and data manipulation has been used to get that figure down 90%. Two, it is irrelevant. If 23% are off isolating because of contacts, then you still have 23% of secondary school age children off not 0.2% or 2.2%. Even that figure, I should note, has been achieved only because of enormous pressure being brought to bear on school leaders to keep isolations to the children sat next to and in front of confirmed cases. If every confirmed case led to whole classes being sent home - which from an epidemiological point of view, it should - then attendance would be touching 50%. But third, it isn't the number of children off that determines whether schools can function, but the number of staff. And as money for supply teachers for the whole year is fast running out, and the government has given out no more, unless we have a dramatic reversal in current infection rates (as in, they are cut in half) there will come a time when schools are legally obliged to close whether the government likes it or not. Frankly, I'm slightly surprised when such evidence as we have indicates one teacher in six is off that we've made it this far.
And this is fully at the door of the government, because there are some decisions they can and should have made that would ease the situation considerably:
1) Rota systems for older year groups, Year 10 upwards. That would allow everyone to plan with some degree of certainty when they are or are not in, rather than ad hoc as at present
2) Cancel GCSEs. Nobody cares about them any more, because everyone knows they are a joke, and it would considerably ease the strains on Year 11. Instead, externally moderated coursework should be used. That also relieves pressure to keep Year 11 in and somehow cram 18 months of teaching into 6 months (as very few subjects have had content reduced) and means more effort can be placed on salvaging A-levels, NVQs and apprenticeships, which actually do matter.
3) Plan all school holidays until July to be two weeks, to try and reduce transmission among schoolchildren. That doesn't come without costs, but better to announce it and plan for it now than to announce it with 48 hours' warning.
But they won't plan this in advance, because it means admitting their strategy has failed. And as a result, they will cock it up repeatedly and cause another massive car crash.
There is definitely an opening here for Starmer and Green - if they can take it.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Being a senior minister would be easier than being president though.
Lord Adonis with a rather dubious statement this morning, especially as it was not true in the case of Reagan, Bush, Trump, Obama, Cameron, May, Chirac, Disraeli or indeed Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer who were all first elected after 30, Starmer indeed not until 52 so a ridiculous 'rule'
At least he’s changed it up, the Germans are the good guys in the second extract. Maybe he really wants a deal and is buttering up Merkel.
It's painful - even the otherwise serious Government statement on December lockdown blathers about "the cavalry" being "almost here". There's absolutely a place for after-dinner wit and metaphor. But not in Government statements.
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
Johnson has smashed vaccine procurement out of the park. If he bails at the right time, curing Covid could be his legacy. He can leave the economic fallout of Covid and Brexit to someone else.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Externally moderated projects? or test papers?
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
At least he’s changed it up, the Germans are the good guys in the second extract. Maybe he really wants a deal and is buttering up Merkel.
It's painful - even the otherwise serious Government statement on December lockdown blathers about "the cavalry" being "almost here". There's absolutely a place for after-dinner wit and metaphor. But not in Government statements.
Seems a vivid and effective communication style to me. The cavalry metaphor has been repeated by a couple of my acquaintances since his comments.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.
SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.
At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.
To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.
Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.
I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.
The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.
Lord Adonis with a rather dubious statement this morning, especially as it was not true in the case of Reagan, Bush, Trump, Obama, Cameron, May, Chirac, Disraeli or indeed Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer who were all first elected after 30, Starmer indeed not until 52 so a ridiculous 'rule'
Yes, there's so many who weren't, in fact, that cherry picking some who were seems rather pointless.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Externally moderated projects? or test papers?
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
How do you know that it is that particular candidate`s own work? And even if it was, these are "open book" assessments with, presumably, no lime limit for completion. They don`t seem to me to cut the mustard like an exam does.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
As, IIRC, Johnson did, in his journalist days.
My unnamed cabinet minister source says Boris says that is fake news.
I agree with much of the header, but I don't accept Starmer has limited time to set out his offer; he has plenty of time. Any Labour policy initiatives presented at the moment would not get a hearing, being drowned out by Covid, Brexit or both. Policy-making is going on behind the scenes in Labour, and what Starmer stands for will gradually become clearer as the current crises abate.
Meanwhile, Labour is content to analyse government policy and point out where it can be improved, while broadly supportive on Covid. And slowly but surely some serious negatives against the government are beginning to stick.
For example, the whiff of cronyism (if not corruption) in contract procurement and doling out jobs does not look good and is being noticed. Divisions within the Tories over Covid restrictions policy are becoming acute. The overall weakness of the cabinet is apparent. Sunak is spending money hand over fist, but it is not always well targeted, as Dodds and others have pointed out. In due course, I expect to see a major reckoning on waste of taxpayers' money: fraud on an industrial scale will emerge, and the generous schemes to help individuals and businesses have too often rewarded those who don't need help and missed those who do. And then there's Brexit, not quite as oven-ready as the public were led to believe. (Of course a successful vaccine rollout may well benefit the government bigly).
So Starmer can bide his time and focus on sorting out Labour's internal problems.
As you can imagine, the debate is being echoed privately in Labour. Alastair is surely right that a general sense of direction would be helpful. Equally, it's difficult to do without sounding irrelevant at this point. "Tens of thousands have dfied from a pandemic and we're about to enter uncharted waters with Brexit." "Erm, yes, but about what wer'll do in 2024..." Normally, an autumn party conference speech could be the right oppportunity for a high-profile sense of direction guaranteed coverage, but at the moment you can only cut through by saying something wild, and wildness really isn't his thing. I'm up for patience into next year.
And sympathies to kjh. We've all got to go sometme but it's never easy.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
At least he’s changed it up, the Germans are the good guys in the second extract. Maybe he really wants a deal and is buttering up Merkel.
It's painful - even the otherwise serious Government statement on December lockdown blathers about "the cavalry" being "almost here". There's absolutely a place for after-dinner wit and metaphor. But not in Government statements.
I think that is rather over the top. I think the use of flowery of emotive cliches can be overdone and I personally find Boris' style tired at this point, but I also find the level of criticism of the use of pretty standard cliches to be bizarre, like when some people (I dare say not all) got faux outraged about use of militaristic cliches to describe the virus response.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
It is easy to jump to conclusions as to where a Covid infection came from. It could have been surface transmission via the bed, or from aerosols - who knows. Seems to me pretty pointless to speculate.
My understanding is that if it was via surface transmission (fomites) then the dose is likely to have been very low and denatured to some degree. Enough for your uncle test positive, but possible of no other significance. Who knows?
Yes I agree. I assume they did the test because of the previous patient testing positive, but it struck me that as my Uncle was not mobile and that bed sheets would have been changed it might not to be the direct route or could be unrelated (Could have been a doctor or nurse)
What I didn't mention was I was told he had 2 tests as the first was not clear, which I am guessing might support your point.
Really the point of my original post was in response/support of PtheP post pointing out that different countries recording cause of death differently and although we don't know yet what cause of death will be given for my Uncle, whatever is given will be ambiguous as we have no idea whether Covid was a factor at all.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
I would have said it's more likely he wanted to secure a title for the family but didn't want to leave the Commons.
Thanks Dr and Mr C; I'd looked at that and it didn't seemed to fit well with either his, or TBH his father's character.Both regarded themselves as 'country gentlemen' but were very definitely upwardly mobile. She was of course somewhat posher than he, as the daughter of an Irish Earl, although a new creation.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
The organisation's website doesn't give details of how the poll was conducted and I find it hard to believe that a third of the population are relaxed about sexual abuse and beating of the elderly and stealing their property. I absolutely think there's a general problem about people in authority over others who aren't in a position to complain sometimes behaving horribly (examples include some care homes, prisons, and refugee centres), but I don't think many people are indifferent to it. Or am I being naive? Can anyone find the actual poll details with exact wording?
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
It is easy to jump to conclusions as to where a Covid infection came from. It could have been surface transmission via the bed, or from aerosols - who knows. Seems to me pretty pointless to speculate.
My understanding is that if it was via surface transmission (fomites) then the dose is likely to have been very low and denatured to some degree. Enough for your uncle test positive, but possible of no other significance. Who knows?
Yes I agree. I assume they did the test because of the previous patient testing positive, but it struck me that as my Uncle was not mobile and that bed sheets would have been changed it might not to be the direct route or could be unrelated (Could have been a doctor or nurse)
What I didn't mention was I was told he had 2 tests as the first was not clear, which I am guessing might support your point.
Really the point of my original post was in response/support of PtheP post pointing out that different countries recording cause of death differently and although we don't know yet what cause of death will be given for my Uncle, whatever is given will be ambiguous as we have no idea whether Covid was a factor at all.
Yes, I get you. Presumably this will go down as a Covid death which from what you have said seems wrong to me.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Externally moderated projects? or test papers?
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
How do you know that it is that particular candidate`s own work? And even if it was, these are "open book" assessments with, presumably, no lime limit for completion. They don`t seem to me to cut the mustard like an exam does.
Simple. You do them in school under exam conditions. In fact you would need to get all schools to do them at the same time to prevent cheating, and you might want to wait until the summer when most people are vaccinated.
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
Johnson has smashed vaccine procurement out of the park. If he bails at the right time, curing Covid could be his legacy. He can leave the economic fallout of Covid and Brexit to someone else.
That’s entirely possible, although I reckon the Brexit fallout and the vaccine rollout will both be in Q1 next year.
I can still see Johnson gone by the summer though, replacing Dom with Carrie is not going to endear him to Red Wall Tory MPs.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Externally moderated projects? or test papers?
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
How do you know that it is that particular candidate`s own work? And even if it was, these are "open book" assessments with, presumably, no lime limit for completion. They don`t seem to me to cut the mustard like an exam does.
Simple. You do them in school under exam conditions. In fact you would need to get all schools to do them at the same time to prevent cheating, and you might want to wait until the summer when most people are vaccinated.
At least he’s changed it up, the Germans are the good guys in the second extract. Maybe he really wants a deal and is buttering up Merkel.
It's painful - even the otherwise serious Government statement on December lockdown blathers about "the cavalry" being "almost here". There's absolutely a place for after-dinner wit and metaphor. But not in Government statements.
Johnson's metaphors and analogies are hackneyed and make his writing style unreadable for me.
I am not keen on tired, dreary, faux-funny, cliché ridden after-dinner speeches or Government statements.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
It is easy to jump to conclusions as to where a Covid infection came from. It could have been surface transmission via the bed, or from aerosols - who knows. Seems to me pretty pointless to speculate.
My understanding is that if it was via surface transmission (fomites) then the dose is likely to have been very low and denatured to some degree. Enough for your uncle test positive, but possible of no other significance. Who knows?
Yes I agree. I assume they did the test because of the previous patient testing positive, but it struck me that as my Uncle was not mobile and that bed sheets would have been changed it might not to be the direct route or could be unrelated (Could have been a doctor or nurse)
What I didn't mention was I was told he had 2 tests as the first was not clear, which I am guessing might support your point.
Really the point of my original post was in response/support of PtheP post pointing out that different countries recording cause of death differently and although we don't know yet what cause of death will be given for my Uncle, whatever is given will be ambiguous as we have no idea whether Covid was a factor at all.
Yes, I get you. Presumably this will go down as a Covid death which from what you have said seems wrong to me.
I'll report back when I know. Will be interesting to know.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
Totally O/t I know, and apologies in advance, but do any of our historians or scientists know why Nobel Prizewinner Lord Rayleigh's grandfather a) refused a title for himself but took it for his wife....... didn't seem to be in touch with any 'progressive ideas and b) took the title of Raleigh. There's a Rayleigh around 20 miles from the family home, but as far as I can see, no connection.
Interesting family! I seem to remember assorted portraits at Derby Museum & Art Gallery, though whether of this gent I can't recall.
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
I would have said it's more likely he wanted to secure a title for the family but didn't want to leave the Commons.
I wondered about that too - out of duty or out of hope of preferment?
I used to live in Rayleigh. We used to get milk in bottles labelled "from Lord Rayleigh's farms" so I suspect they owned land in the area.
Thanks for the thought, but Lord Rayleigh's Farms dairies cover a much wider area than the family holdings. I can't find any reference to the family owning land around there; all their farms were about 20 miles further north, to the east of Chelmsford.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
As, IIRC, Johnson did, in his journalist days.
My unnamed cabinet minister source says Boris says that is fake news.
I really dislike the weight that is given to quotes given by journalists without attribution. There is a place for them in journalism of course but not everyday all the time. What on earth is there to stop a lazy journalist repeatedly making up quotes from their "source"?
As, IIRC, Johnson did, in his journalist days.
My unnamed cabinet minister source says Boris says that is fake news.
How does he know? Boris, I mean, not your UCMS.
Reading between the lines he worded it cleverly. Boris as a journalist making up fictitious quotes is indeed fake news.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
Personally, I’m in favour of doing a deal. But not at any cost. The risk is on things like state aid, where the EU have rules that they routinely ignore among themselves at their convenience, but would seek to enforce to the letter against the U.K.
How would “externally moderated coursework” work in those subjects which don’t do anything like coursework over the GCSE course? Physics for one would struggle hugely and maths (a fairly important qualification) would be worse.
Externally moderated projects? or test papers?
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
How do you know that it is that particular candidate`s own work? And even if it was, these are "open book" assessments with, presumably, no lime limit for completion. They don`t seem to me to cut the mustard like an exam does.
Since current GCSE exams do not 'cut the mustard' as you put it, having neither rigorous questions nor consistent marking critieria, I'm not sure what your complaint is.
Although the current government have a positive fetish for exams because they reward candidates with good memories and innate self-confidence, they are at best (which GCSEs are not) rather a blunt instrument.
But that in any case is not the point at issue. The issue is, how do we get some form of rigour into assessment this summer so we can make a meaningful stab at differentiating outcomes given that logistically exams are out of the question?
And while my suggestion may be the wrong one, that is a decision and a system that needs to be being dealt with now that this government have neither the courage or integrity to face.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Johnson is going nowhere least of all because it'd be convenient for the tory party.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
I’m sure his renowned fidelity and loyalty to his many women will make him do exactly what she wishes.
Who was it that first said, that the man who marries his mistress merely creates a vacancy?
The first thing Carrie knew about Boris is that he’s unfaithful to his wife.
That is true but irrelevant. Far more likely still than tier 3 to tier 2 is moving from tier 2 to tier 3. Post Xmas most of the country will be tier 3.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
So who are the 3 jokers? Boris plus 2? Blair and Gladwin two of the aces, who are the others? Churchill?
I am not familiar with Mr Gladwin's administration, which is surprising given how capable he clearly was. I would have guessed Lloyd George and Thatcher given who created it.
Three jokers - Goderich, Brown, Johnson.
Edit - I would never have dared make Pitt the Younger the queen. But Dale might get away with it...
The other aces were Churchill and Walpole. Thatcher and May were queens as well.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
Key point is to hope that you do not need to go to hospital , if you are going to get it anywhere then hospital is the place.
Its a good piece from Alastair. I can identify three Starmer problems:
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
And that will never change - 24 hour news and (especially) Social Media makes an MP's job impossible.
The army has mobilised an elite “information warfare” unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines, as Britain prepares to deliver its first injections within days.
The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and belongs to the army’s 77th Brigade. The secretive unit has often worked side-by-side with psychological operations teams.
Leaked documents reveal that its soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace for Covid-19 content and analysing how British citizens are being targeted online. It is also gathering evidence of vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia,
Next month the 77th Brigade will begin an “uplift” of professional and reserve soldiers to join operations. The brigade’s badge bears the same mythical creature used by the Chindits, an Indian army guerrilla warfare force known for its unconventional methods in the Second World War.
The scaling up of intelligence efforts comes after at least 155 people were arrested, including for assault on a police officer, during anti-lockdown protests in the West End of London yesterday. Many appeared to be influenced by anti-vax propaganda and refused to wear masks.
Ministers are alarmed at the impact that online propaganda is having on public opinion. A recent report found that more than one-third of people are uncertain or are very unlikely to be vaccinated.
If government are still giving PPE contracts to people they know, they’re in political trouble.
Throwing procurement rules out of the window and dealing with anyone who could get stuff at any price was fine in March, but definitely isn’t in November.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
Key point is to hope that you do not need to go to hospital , if you are going to get it anywhere then hospital is the place.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
I expect half the population will be complaining they did not get the vaccine early and half will be refusing to be vaccinated. I wouldn't be surprised to find a significant overlap between these two groups...
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
We shall see, past actions would suggest otherwise, jury out especially no we have another useless halfwit in charge of it.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.
Given the second wave that is now long-running in the US, and its dreadful total case and new case statistics, it is remarkable that proportionately fewer people are now dying of the virus in the US compared to other countries and particularly the UK. We're chalking up daily death totals that are between a half and a third of those in the US despite the American new case numbers being anywhere up to ten times higher.
Granularity is your friend. There are 8 states over the 1,000 deaths/million with NY and NJ closing in on 2,000/m. My strong guess is the rest are just at an earlier point on the curve. Of countries, only Belgium and Peru have passed the 1,000 mark.
There would also be significant differences in reporting procedures. For example, there is rarely a single cause of death and some countries would be more inclined than others to attribute to Covid a death where it was only one of a number of factors.
My uncle died last week. He was 92 and very frail. He collapsed with very low blood pressure and was rushed to hospital. He had internal bleeding. We were warned to expect the worse. It was turned out to be stomach ulcers and was treated and it looked like he might recover. He then contracted Covid in hospital, although it wasn't clear he suffered symptoms (he moved to a bed that the previous person had subsequently tested positive), but under the circumstances how can you be sure. He had further bleeds and they withdrew treatment (he had previously requested this). They kept him comfortable and he died a few days later (info from my Aunt so 2nd hand).
We don't have a death certificate yet to know given cause of death but whatever it will clearly be ambiguous.
Sorry to hear this. But it sounds as though your uncle might have thought it a release.
Bit concerning that their capacity is at such pressure they are using beds from covid patients without (presumably) adequate cleaning though.
Thank you and yes.
He/She wasn't a Covid patient. Found positive subsequent to leaving hospital. Wasn't a Covid ward. We are assuming (possibly incorrectly) that is how my Uncle got it as his home was clear. I presume that was why he was tested.
I see. In that case, I was obviously unfair to the hospital.
Your post sums up in a nutshell why this virus is such an absolute bastard* to deal with. How can you clamp down on a virus that you can spread for up to 72 hours before noticing even mild symptoms?
*Please note, @Yorkcity , no references to Mr Drakeford were made in this post
Key point is to hope that you do not need to go to hospital , if you are going to get it anywhere then hospital is the place.
Unless you're a teacher, of course.
At least you are a moving target as a teacher , rather than a sitting duck.
If government are still giving PPE contracts to people they know, they’re in political trouble.
Throwing procurement rules out of the window and dealing with anyone who could get stuff at any price was fine in March, but definitely isn’t in November.
Gove next out of the cabinet?
Brooks Newmark is back. The disgraced former MP, who quit as a Conservative minister after sending explicit photos to an undercover journalist posing as a “Tory PR girl”, has spent his time since leaving parliament quietly managing the Catholic Herald weekly and helping run an art gallery.
But Atticus learns he has established himself as a middleman for companies trying to land lucrative government PPE contracts.
Newmark, a father of five, rebooted his consultancy over the summer, before appointing his wife a director last month.
He is said to have made “big money”. One source said Newmark, 62, had even shown friends texts between him and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, to prove his abiding proximity to the government.
On the phone last week he said: “Yeah, I don’t talk about my business interest at all ... I really don’t want to talk about it.” Strange — he’s not normally one to hide his assets.
If government are still giving PPE contracts to people they know, they’re in political trouble.
Throwing procurement rules out of the window and dealing with anyone who could get stuff at any price was fine in March, but definitely isn’t in November.
They have been lining their pals pockets since the start , it is their only success in the whole matter. The one thing they are experts at.
The one thing the government has done really well, is getting vaccines ordered from a huge variety of sources. Irrespective of anything else they’ve done or not done, the UK is going to be one of the first major countries to get everyone vaccinated.
I've just watched that video. It's great that we have access to so many vaccine doses once they get approved. But the manufacturing process looks fundamentally flawed.
On the evidence of the video, there is no way Johnson is going to be able make anywhere near the number of vaccines we need. It looks like he's only just been trained up and he's not very quick. We need millions of doses. My guess is he will only be able to make 5 or 6 doses of the vaccine at a time.
The whole process needs scaling up massively. I would prefer we used trained pharmaceutical staff to do the job otherwise the roll out is just not going to work out.
Completely disagree with the theme of the article. It assumes the next election will be a battle of ideas on a level playing field where the voters choose the best ideas. It is very far removed from the reality, which is that Labour is lost in Scotland, leaving Labour needing to achieve Blair levels of success in English shires, where the voters are normally well to the right of centre. There is no big Labour idea that will enthuse them, any new ideas or themes are more likely to make it even harder for Labour.
The plan is simple, position as competent, trustworthy if a bit bland, and wait for the Tories to lose the election rather than Labour to win it. It is their best bet even if its dull and boring for commentators and politicos.
The other thing we must remember is that the Tories are running out of talent, not least thanks to Johnson's ego trip purge of the Remainers.
OK, they have some serious figures still on the back benches. Hunt, Javid, May, even Harper. But not lots of them, and they may not be willing to return to front line politics.
So even if Johnson is overthrown and replaced, the cabinet will still look lightweight.
Therefore, Starmer's key point is to look to assemble an abler shadow cabinet that people will want to trust. So far, he hasn't quite managed that - in particular, he needs someone better shadowing the Treasury.
I think that's where I'd be concentrating, not on opposing for the sake of opposition or trying to build a narrative. If competence and talent are available, the narrative builds itself.
There’s also a pretty good chance that, by the time of the next election, Starmer isn’t up against Johnson, but rather a Javid or Gove as PM for a year or two. I think Johnson will be gone next year, he was elected to get Brexit over the line and he’ll do that before being forced out.
Conservatives have been very good at changing leader in power, and making it clear that this is a brand new administration. They’ve done it twice already, and it’s not impossible they’ll do it once more.
I don't think Johnson will make it to the next election either. But the point about lack of talent still stands.
Indeed, there’s a huge lack of talent on all sides. I suspect that a lot of good people are becoming disillusioned with politics and unwilling to make the personal sacrifices now necessary to serve their country as an MP - leaving only those with the big egos.
Great point, but its not just recruiting new talent, its keeping existing talent our politics has failed in. The following MPs are amongst those who chose not to contest the last election:
Heidi Allen, Nick Boles, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Michael Fallon, Justine Greening, Phil Hammond, Sylvia Hermon, Jo Johnson, Norman Lamb, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Patrick McLoughlin, Nicky Morgan, Geoffrey Robinson, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart, Ed Vaizey, Tom Watson.
Under PM Ken Clarke that would make a far superior cabinet than either Conservatives or Labour can put together (let alone the ones they choose to put together).
Apart from their massive collective blind spot of wanting to overturn a referendum, I agree. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for some of these to come back in the future, once the EU debate is settled.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
Which of those actually wanted to overturn a referendum? Cable and Allen perhaps? The rest were all in favour of a Brexit deal.
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Many of them said in public that the referendum result should be respected, whilst doing everything possible to prevent it in Parliament.
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
This is simply untrue. Clarke, Boles, Hammond and Stewart all voted for Mays exit deal, as did the vast majority of Tories on the list I quoted.
You’re right, some of them did indeed vote for the May deal. I did think Clarke voted against it though.
Oh God, Johnson's going to have to take a decision over which one of them to deploy.
It's not that difficult tbh, Pfizer and Moderna for over 55s, AZ for under 55s, have two programmes running simultaneously, run the under 55s programme from school halls and other non-specialist locations and the over 55s one from doctors surgeries, hospitals and walk in centres where they have the specialist refrigeration available. That way you vaccinate as many people as possible at the same time rather than wait around, especially since the over 55s might not be eligible for the AZ vaccine.
The big picture in a couple of sentences. Those who are desperate for Boris and/or the government to be 'in trouble' know that in a few months' time the stellar job that they have done on vaccine procurement is going to turn the national mood around and make all the current moaning about tiers and related bullshit irrelevant.
Indeed, Johnson has played a blinder over vaccine procurement.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
The organisation's website doesn't give details of how the poll was conducted and I find it hard to believe that a third of the population are relaxed about sexual abuse and beating of the elderly and stealing their property. I absolutely think there's a general problem about people in authority over others who aren't in a position to complain sometimes behaving horribly (examples include some care homes, prisons, and refugee centres), but I don't think many people are indifferent to it. Or am I being naive? Can anyone find the actual poll details with exact wording?
They have created something called "Safer Ageing Week" and are punting for media attention / agenda setting.
It seems to be old polling from earlier in the year judging by this:
So I think it will be lurking in an old media release or tweet or buried in Yougov somewhere 4-12 months ago.
It looks to (media cynical me) like a press release issued without any proven data to get lurid stories / headlines rolling which will make it to more reputable papers and the BBC by media-logic, then Parliament as it has been "reported in the media". Maybe even into PMQ.
To me there are red flags all over the story. No time period on the "one in 5 have been abused", dissimilar comparisons with WHO, "Unprecedented", "Absolutely Shocked", as you say no source, "Up to" on the numbers. I would add that a rentaquote from Vera Baird always makes a story questionable (you may not agree on that one).
Comments
They aren’t perfect, but they are far better than what we’ve been doing.
Hodges gives PM both barrels over the strategic shambles that is lockdown 'policy'. Urges backbenchers to block it next week.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8996569/DAN-HODGES-time-Tory-MPs-told-Boris-stumbling-lockdown-lockdown-isnt-strategy.html
I might as well be abandoned.
Also, 👸🥜🥜 enjoys having access to the leavers of power. She didn't start sucking Johnson off because she wanted to be the partner of a semi-professional after dinner speaker.
And Maggie was very frugal with her popularity, using Years 1 and 2 do do unpopular stuff that would pay off.
Whereas Boris is unpopular because he's useless and quite nasty.
That's why he would be unwise to side with the government over it. He'd piss off a lot of influential Labourites for no very good reason.
I would be interested to know his views on whether it should go ahead, given of course he knows Leeds very well. But I suspect he'll keep quiet.
Oh, and Ken Clarke is older than Joe Biden, he was born in 1940!
My understanding is that if it was via surface transmission (fomites) then the dose is likely to have been very low and denatured to some degree. Enough for your uncle test positive, but possible of no other significance. Who knows?
https://twitter.com/hp_scotland/status/1332845596743491585?s=19
I had a quick look at Oxford DNB online, as I have access, but no luck. However there is a biog of the chap on the Westminster Pmt History website. Maybe he thought she was posher than him and had a better chance?
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/strutt-joseph-holden-1758-1845
Your posts are consistently accurate whether I agree with them or not, but on politicians who didnt want no deal you have a blind spot, conflating anti no-deal with wanting to overturn a referendum. Clarke, Boles, Hammond, Stewart as the most prominent on the issue, were explicit that we should Brexit, as were most of the rest on the list.
Lord Adonis with a rather dubious statement this morning, especially as it was not true in the case of Reagan, Bush, Trump, Obama, Cameron, May, Chirac, Disraeli or indeed Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer who were all first elected after 30, Starmer indeed not until 52 so a ridiculous 'rule'
What I do know is we can't have a repeat of last year.
SKS understands that to win he needs to get Tories to vote for him. Lots of the party has no understanding of this. Tories are not going to lend their votes to the Pidcock/Burgon 'Tory vermin' tendency.
SKS is a reasonably heavy hitter but doesn't come across as well as he should because he is not part of a team of people with the capacity to be bruising heavy hitters.
At the moment I have to stop and think before being able to name the shadow home and foreign secretaries, and I can only name the shadow chancellor because she is so exposed as emphatically not a heavy hitter (being clever and nice is sadly not enough) that it is unforgettable.
To win lots of Tory votes (there aren't many LD votes left to win) Tory voters, (who unlike the party members are mostly centrist moderates) need to be sure that Labour is: liberal, social democrat, unwedded to modish causes, defender of free speech and opinion, willing to balance the books and have got a plan. They will tax us without destroying enterprise, judge people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, root out anti semitism.
Communicating this takes people of the stature of Healey, Jenkins, Clarke, Blair, David but not Ed Milliband, Wilson and Callaghan.
I fear that the regime of Corbyn and co and the appeasing of the left has left the cupboard bare.
The Tories are being pursued by the angry bear of the voters. They don't need to run faster than the bear, they need to run faster than Labour. At the moment they can.
And sympathies to kjh. We've all got to go sometme but it's never easy.
What I didn't mention was I was told he had 2 tests as the first was not clear, which I am guessing might support your point.
Really the point of my original post was in response/support of PtheP post pointing out that different countries recording cause of death differently and although we don't know yet what cause of death will be given for my Uncle, whatever is given will be ambiguous as we have no idea whether Covid was a factor at all.
She was of course somewhat posher than he, as the daughter of an Irish Earl, although a new creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQFho0_G1VI
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/29/one-in-five-older-people-in-the-uk-have-been-abused-poll-finds
The organisation's website doesn't give details of how the poll was conducted and I find it hard to believe that a third of the population are relaxed about sexual abuse and beating of the elderly and stealing their property. I absolutely think there's a general problem about people in authority over others who aren't in a position to complain sometimes behaving horribly (examples include some care homes, prisons, and refugee centres), but I don't think many people are indifferent to it. Or am I being naive? Can anyone find the actual poll details with exact wording?
In fact you would need to get all schools to do them at the same time to prevent cheating, and you might want to wait until the summer when most people are vaccinated.
I can still see Johnson gone by the summer though, replacing Dom with Carrie is not going to endear him to Red Wall Tory MPs.
I am not keen on tired, dreary, faux-funny, cliché ridden after-dinner speeches or Government statements.
https://twitter.com/greg_jenner/status/1332860858972692489
Eventually they couldn’t hold up the pretence any longer, and stood aside rather than answer to those that elected them.
Hopefully some of them will find a way back in the future.
Personally, I’m in favour of doing a deal. But not at any cost. The risk is on things like state aid, where the EU have rules that they routinely ignore among themselves at their convenience, but would seek to enforce to the letter against the U.K.
Although the current government have a positive fetish for exams because they reward candidates with good memories and innate self-confidence, they are at best (which GCSEs are not) rather a blunt instrument.
But that in any case is not the point at issue. The issue is, how do we get some form of rigour into assessment this summer so we can make a meaningful stab at differentiating outcomes given that logistically exams are out of the question?
And while my suggestion may be the wrong one, that is a decision and a system that needs to be being dealt with now that this government have neither the courage or integrity to face.
The first thing Carrie knew about Boris is that he’s unfaithful to his wife.
Blair and Gladwin two of the aces, who are the others? Churchill?
1. There are plenty of wrong strategies to combat Covid but very few obvious correct ones. Most of the things we should have done with Covid weren't possible due to the inaction at the beginning on shutting the border. So the main change is not to start here, which is a difficult political argument. What for me is an obvious target is the incoherence in the government's communications - people think "fuck it" because one minister contradicts another to explain rules which are increasingly absurd and contradictory. Starmer is doing a poor job attacking this because it doesn't suit his lawyerly style.
2. The Labour Party is mental. He can't attack the Tory corruption when so much of his own party is a cult. The war for supremacy inside the Labour Party seems as nasty and all-consuming as ever and it won't go away until the Kali Ma get purged. Removing Corbyn and his cult would be fantastically popular in the wider electorate and would draw an immediate line under the "why did you sit next to him" questions. But he won't act. Because...
3. Starmer isn't a good politician. He's only been an MP for 5 years remember, and despite his legal prowess he has repeatedly shown that he isn't good at the things good politicians have to be good at - gut instinct, guile, balls, narrative
I struggle for a way back for both of the big parties. BJ gutted the parliamentary Tory party by demanding fealty. What is left are largely crap or stupid or both. Labour gutted itself and the electorate obligingly binned so many. The lack of talent is a serious problem for the country. We need competent government and focused opposition. We have neither.
Three jokers - Goderich, Brown, Johnson.
Edit - I would never have dared make Pitt the Younger the queen. But Dale might get away with it...
The other aces were Churchill and Walpole. Thatcher and May were queens as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/27/boris-johnson-false-hope-lockdown-prime-minister-tier-system
Throwing procurement rules out of the window and dealing with anyone who could get stuff at any price was fine in March, but definitely isn’t in November.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a significant overlap between these two groups...
Brooks Newmark is back. The disgraced former MP, who quit as a Conservative minister after sending explicit photos to an undercover journalist posing as a “Tory PR girl”, has spent his time since leaving parliament quietly managing the Catholic Herald weekly and helping run an art gallery.
But Atticus learns he has established himself as a middleman for companies trying to land lucrative government PPE contracts.
Newmark, a father of five, rebooted his consultancy over the summer, before appointing his wife a director last month.
He is said to have made “big money”. One source said Newmark, 62, had even shown friends texts between him and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, to prove his abiding proximity to the government.
On the phone last week he said: “Yeah, I don’t talk about my business interest at all ... I really don’t want to talk about it.” Strange — he’s not normally one to hide his assets.
On the evidence of the video, there is no way Johnson is going to be able make anywhere near the number of vaccines we need. It looks like he's only just been trained up and he's not very quick. We need millions of doses. My guess is he will only be able to make 5 or 6 doses of the vaccine at a time.
The whole process needs scaling up massively. I would prefer we used trained pharmaceutical staff to do the job otherwise the roll out is just not going to work out.
Government Covid performance can be viewed as a University exam. 25/25 for vaccines, 7/25 for lockdowns, 7/25 for test, track and trace. 0/25 for post Covid economic performance (unfortunately, none of the questions studied came up!) is still a fail.
It seems to be old polling from earlier in the year judging by this:
https://twitter.com/wearehourglass_/status/1331176005894098944
So I think it will be lurking in an old media release or tweet or buried in Yougov somewhere 4-12 months ago.
It looks to (media cynical me) like a press release issued without any proven data to get lurid stories / headlines rolling which will make it to more reputable papers and the BBC by media-logic, then Parliament as it has been "reported in the media". Maybe even into PMQ.
To me there are red flags all over the story. No time period on the "one in 5 have been abused", dissimilar comparisons with WHO, "Unprecedented", "Absolutely Shocked", as you say no source, "Up to" on the numbers. I would add that a rentaquote from Vera Baird always makes a story questionable (you may not agree on that one).