The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
Perhaps they've learnt the wrong lessons from 2019. The approach Starmer's adopting now would have been the right one to use in the previous parliament.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
Well the Tories certainly don't...
I do. But the Tories weren't in Government, so they get a pass.
It will be the same with Brexit. Labour has nothing to be proud of, but in the unlikely event it is not a success it will be the Tories that get the kicking, and rightly so.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
Don’t tell me: Trump’s odds dropping, as we move closer to the Supreme Court verdict?
I think every effort will be made to avoid referring this to the SC. It would almost inevitably result in a 9-0 repudiation of the President which would be hugely embarrassing for all concerned.
The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
There will be time enough for that in 2021-4. Starmer can't actually influence Brexit policy, not with a government majority of 80. Frankly, BoJo has won the right to manage his vision of the nation. And any concessions from Brexit towards Reality have to come from the government, not be forced on them by the opposition. If a Stab In The Back is coming, Johnson et al must have their fingerprints on the dagger. As someone who wants the best for the UK, that looks suboptimal. But it's also honest; influence what you can, but accept that control of everything in the modern world is a fever dream.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
People mention it on here every other day.
We're all weirdos though.
As the world's worst band once sang
I'm a weirdo, What the hell am I doin' here? I don't belong here.
I wouldn't have thought so. You should be noted as an intelligent critic, ready to point out the flaws in Government policy without fear or favour and offering better alternatives. That doesn't mean you have to say "If the Government says it's Monday then we claim it's Friday." That just annoys voters and discredits you when you have a genuine criticism.
Yes, I'm sure that's right. Starmer can distance himself from the downside of the policy by a combination of what he and his colleagues say in their speeches, and by putting down amendments which the government has to vote down. In the particular case of a Brexit deal, that shouldn't be hard, since everyone knows that the alternative is chaos (or to be more precise, even more chaos than we're going to get).
Plus, if he frames it as "a bad deal, but better than nothing, and a future Labour government will be able to build on it in the future to negotiate a closer trading relationship with our EU friends", he'll be able to add to the difficulties Boris will have with his nutjob backbenchers.
All people will remember (because the Cons will remind them) is that Lab supported the two critical Cons policies of the day.
Nobody remembers that the Tories supported the Iraq War.
Well the Tories certainly don't...
Everyone knows it as Blair's war, and everyone knows Blair is a Tory.
Thinking of Blair, we should get him and his family to refuse to confirm whether they've had the vaccine. Because that worked so well the last time he did it.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
Don’t tell me: Trump’s odds dropping, as we move closer to the Supreme Court verdict?
I think every effort will be made to avoid referring this to the SC. It would almost inevitably result in a 9-0 repudiation of the President which would be hugely embarrassing for all concerned.
The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
There will be time enough for that in 2021-4. Starmer can't actually influence Brexit policy, not with a government majority not 80. Frankly, BoJo has won the right to manage his vision of the nation. And any concessions from Brexit towards Reality have to come from the government, not be forced on them by the opposition. If a Stab In The Back is coming, Johnson et al must have their fingerprints on the dagger. As someone who wants the best for the UK, that looks suboptimal. But it's also honest; influence what you can, but accept that control of everything in the modern world is a fever dream.
They can't influence the decision, but they can influence the narrative. In fact they should be aiming to set the narrative, as New Labour did in opposition in the 90s. At the moment they are mostly AWOL, with a Shadow Chancellor who is the epitome of lightweight, and a leader who seems to spend much of his time avoiding any hard positions on anything. It's a major waste of a political opportunity for them.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
There will be time enough for that in 2021-4. Starmer can't actually influence Brexit policy, not with a government majority not 80. Frankly, BoJo has won the right to manage his vision of the nation. And any concessions from Brexit towards Reality have to come from the government, not be forced on them by the opposition. If a Stab In The Back is coming, Johnson et al must have their fingerprints on the dagger. As someone who wants the best for the UK, that looks suboptimal. But it's also honest; influence what you can, but accept that control of everything in the modern world is a fever dream.
They can't influence the decision, but they can influence the narrative. In fact they should be aiming to set the narrative, as New Labour did in opposition in the 90s. At the moment they are mostly AWOL, with a Shadow Chancellor who is the epitome of lightweight, and a leader who seems to spend much of his time avoiding any hard positions on anything. It's a major waste of a political opportunity for them.
Except that right now, that would be spun as "You're making Britain sound weak, you agents of Barnier. If Brexit fails, it will be down to Labour's lack of faith in Britain." Utter tosh, but we are in a time of tosh.
I think we're heading for a clustershambles, and I wish it could be softened. But I get why Starmer has concluded that he might as well keep quiet while Johnson takes the rope he wants, even if it is likely to hurt Britain and lead to Johnson hanging himself. Sometimes, you have to let people or nations hurt themselves ☹️.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
The mistake Labour are making on Brexit is that they are not laying into the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the negotiations and preparations (or lack thereof) with sufficient vigour. Instead they waste media bandwidth with trivia such as daft complaints about Rishi Sunak's wife's investments. Why on earth aren't they all over the media complaining that Boris has put businesses into an impossible position, leaving everything many months too late and landing us with a choice between a bad deal and an even worse No Deal? This and the Covid-19 failings should be their main attack points, but Brexit is the easier one for them. They have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to project themselves as better on business and the economy than the Conservatives.
A good question. Perhaps as they don’t understand business almost as much as the current Tories don’t care ?
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
This thing with students is hardly a surprise. Students. Contained for a term in a pox fast breeder hall of residence. Go home to the olds. Have 5 days of Christmas cheer with Mum, Dad, little Johnny, Granny and Aunt Flo. Spread the pox to their family. And then come back in late Jan for the inevitable funeral(s).
The government could stop this. But don't understand and don't care.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
The problem with nuclear is that no-one will build a plant without massive subsidies.
The current baseload electricity price in the UK is about GBP24. Wind is guaranteed prices of around GBP40-60 (depending on whether it's on-shore or off-, and when it was commissioned) Tidal would get built at a sub GBP60 price Hinckley Point C is about GBP90. And it's on an escalator, so the price rises every year.
Ahhhh, you might say, but nuclear is very reliable. Which is simply not true. EPRs are currently managing uptimes in the mid-60s. Once the kinks are worked out, they will probably get to 80%. But that's no better than off-shore wind, and probably worse than tidal.
What is the problem that overpriced nuclear is supposed to solve?
Random question - a genuine one rather than a rhetorical one.
If a big vaccination program is literally only a few weeks from beginning (presumably), why do we care about novel types of mass community testing? Are they not coming too late, basically - did we not need them really when there was no vaccine close? Do such things not now have a very limited shelf-life usage?
If they are jabbing lots of people in Jan-Mar, does that not mean by Easter there won't be much point in mass community testing, or am I missing the obvious. Will they still have a place post vaccination?
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
If it turns out the Tiers vote and Brexit deal only passes thanks to the votes of Labour MPs then I think Sir Keir Starmer is the most powerful LOTO since Attlee.
If Starmer passes the Brexit Deal then he's a fool.
The Tories need to own this economic clusterf*ck lock stock and barrel.
This talk about people "owning" stuff is real cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Permitting a preventable no deal crashout in order to make Johnson look jolly silly would be party before country stuff of which I hope Starmer is simply incapable.
When it all goes wrong, which is will as any deal now will be as skinny as a 90s supermodel as someone quipped the other day - then if Starmer voted for it this will come back to haunt him.
Labour could abstain to allow it to pass, I guess?
Random question - a genuine one rather than a rhetorical one.
If a big vaccination program is literally only a few weeks from beginning (presumably), why do we care about novel types of mass community testing? Are they not coming too late, basically - did we not need them really when there was no vaccine close? Do such things not now have a very limited shelf-life usage?
If they are jabbing lots of people in Jan-Mar, does that not mean by Easter there won't be much point in mass community testing, or am I missing the obvious. Will they still have a place post vaccination?
It’s a great question. I suspect that it’s a bit like building Lancaster bombers in 1945. You plan for a huge need as one part of a strategy, but the war ends with you still building capacity you no longer need. There was no guarantee that vaccines would work, or be as promising as they are, so it makes sense to have huge screening available. We will of course use them in the next few months, but hopefully they will become more and more redundant as we go through winter and into spring.
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
It's sensible Opposition strategy to pick your battles and look like a credible government in waiting.
Considering polls show 80% back the restrictions there seems to be nothing to be won from the public in rejecting them. On the other hand setting Tory backbenchers against their PM seems to be successfully setting up divisions for going forwards.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
The problem with nuclear is that no-one will build a plant without massive subsidies.
The current baseload electricity price in the UK is about GBP24. Wind is guaranteed prices of around GBP40-60 (depending on whether it's on-shore or off-, and when it was commissioned) Tidal would get built at a sub GBP60 price Hinckley Point C is about GBP90. And it's on an escalator, so the price rises every year.
Ahhhh, you might say, but nuclear is very reliable. Which is simply not true. EPRs are currently managing uptimes in the mid-60s. Once the kinks are worked out, they will probably get to 80%. But that's no better than off-shore wind, and probably worse than tidal.
What is the problem that overpriced nuclear is supposed to solve?
Cardiff Lagoon could be built at a price around £50-£55. It would last 120 years minimum. Nuclear lasts 60 years tops - wind maybe 40 before it needs to be completely replaced - currently by foreign kit. Tidal is 86% domestic spend. BEIS admitted in a written answer that building a fleet of tidal lagoons would create 57,000 jobs. Maybe Boris will tell us how many jobs his fetish with wind power protects - outside the UK.
By every metric, this Government not building tidal lagoon power stations is stupid, stupid, stupid.....
Seems odd. Not wanting to commit one way or another?
An abstention doesn't of course mean a lack of commitment. Inevitably, there will be those who will criticise the Opposition whatever they do - if they support the Government, they are weak and not providing any Opposition, if they oppose, it is all about partisan politics at a time of national crisis.
Now, it seems they can't abstain either without criticism.
Let's suppose for one nanosecond Starmer and the Conservative rebels had engineered a Government defeat - what then? Obviously, it wouldn't have happened because the Conservative rebels would have caved not wishing to hand a victory to the Opposition or the Whips would have done the usual job with the thumbscrews.
What would it have meant? A short-term problem for Johnson but the charge against Labour of acting in narrow political rather than the genuine national interest could have been made. Abstention neutralises that charge as well as allowing the justifiable criticism of the Government to be made.
One annoyance in the “lockdown sceptics” series of arguments is the way they never hold their own arguments and predictions remotely accountable.
Confidently saying there were no excess deaths this year as the first wave built up. And then not even and “oops, I guess we were wrong.”
Each and every statement on Sweden, since disproved, all of which may never have been said for all they have to say on it.
That the IFR is well below one in a thousand, maybe one in ten thousand. Toby even tried to revive that briefly, using the death figures to make his point as we have to take them into accou... oh. Oops. And now silence there.
Opening schools will have no issues and children don’t even pass on the virus. That aged well.
We can release all restrictions and nothing bad will happen.
There won’t be a second wave.
There’s no point kicking the can down the road, vaccines won’t come along to save us.
There’s no excess deaths THIS time, and here’s a dodgy graph sourced from a conspiracy theorist on Twitter to “prove” it.
Never a single acknowledgement of the repeated wrong nature of any of it, never any hint of an analysis of where they went wrong, always the squeaking sound of goalposts shifting.
But, the problem is ONS/SAGE have hardly done much better. E.g. How have SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality over the long term? It is much easier to criticise the "lockdown sceptics" from a position of real strength, in which your data-driven forward models are nicely matching the data.
SAGE publish a weekly estimate not only of R, but also the daily growth rate, which is a directly interpretable number.
If you take SAGE's estimate of the daily growth rate and integrate it over time, you can plot this against the number of cases actually reported. They should be in good agreement.
The last time I did this (admittedly, in September), SAGE were grossly underestimating the size of the epidemic by a factor of 10. That is the integration of their daily growth rate over time underestimated the number of cases by an order of magnitude.
SAGE have done a really poor job of the modelling, the statistical interpretation and the communication.
I strongly believe that all their codes, data and methodology should be open access. Many people could be helping SAGE, but they are not going to re-derive and re-code everything from scratch.
The interaction and advice from scientists to politicians to the public has been much. much better in Germany. We have a lot to learn from this pandemic.
Should be in good agreement? I think it's questionable to expect that, multiplying an varying exponential over 50 infection cycles is likely to be in good agreement. Even if you are quite close most of the time, even very slight compounding errors in one direction are going to quickly make this kind of sanity check fly off into orbit, no? It doesn't strike me as a fair test.
I don't understand what you mean by a "multiplying a variable exponential over 50 infection cycles."
Please do explain. It is alway great to turn politicalbetting into a hot & geeky blog.
I have a day-to-day point estimate of the growth rate provided by SAGE. I integrate that. The integration is over one day. Then, I use the new SAGE estimate for the next day. I integrate over the next day. And so on. I add up the number of cases SAGE predicts and compare to the true number of cases. The error is bounded and controlled by the error in SAGE's daily estimate.
There are divergences over the timescale of 2 weeks, an order of magnitude over a few weeks (at least when I did it over September, October). The only explanation is a **consistent bias** in SAGE's methodology for estimating the daily growth rate, rather than any random uncertainty.
A discrepancy is not unusual, but a drift is telling me that their point estimator of the daily rate is consistently biased.(The only thing I have not done is explicitly factor in any increase in testing. I agree that could be an effect, but over the timescale of a few weeks -- I rather doubt it).
Incidentally, way back in March, I was one of SAGE's strongest supporters on this blog.
No more. I think this model of advising the government from a group of 50 odd random experts is seriously flawed. It belongs in the nineteenth century with Lord Palmerston.
Apologies @YBarddCwsc , I'm only n picking this one up now.
OK, I'd understood the divergence to be over a longer period, so if b you did March- September, for instance, the R rate being systematically 0.05 out would yield an order of magnitude difference over that period.
I've generally seem the daily increase rate quoted as, say, between 2 and 4%, so quite a range v of increases could result from that over a few weeks. I guess the natural thing to do would be to take the mid point and integrate using that.
I can think of a couple of reasons why, longer term, this might not sit on the mid point. One is the tendency of R to drift higher over a period of time between role changes, as a high incidence, low R location contributes progressively less to overall R relative to a low incidence, high R location. If left to continue, R would tend asymptotically to the higher local R value. But then, after rule changes I'd guess SAGE would be reluctant to reduce their figures until there was clear evidence in the data, which would be an opposing effect.
In any case. I think the assumption that the actual R should sit neatly in the middle of the range the ONS produce is not a given.
I'm not saying the modellers are right here, just trying to think of things that might need going on.
One more thought: on the ONS weekly infection survey: there were two weeks in early September when the raw data for the number of people infected looked to be on. opposite edges of the 95% credible interval - that could have skewed things quite a bit.
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
Just out of interest: do we know what Wales's Covid death rate is?
Scotland's is significantly worse than England's. Would be ironic if, after all the self-regarding preening of Sturgeon and Drakeford, they ended worse off than Boristan.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
The problem with nuclear is that no-one will build a plant without massive subsidies.
The current baseload electricity price in the UK is about GBP24. Wind is guaranteed prices of around GBP40-60 (depending on whether it's on-shore or off-, and when it was commissioned) Tidal would get built at a sub GBP60 price Hinckley Point C is about GBP90. And it's on an escalator, so the price rises every year.
Ahhhh, you might say, but nuclear is very reliable. Which is simply not true. EPRs are currently managing uptimes in the mid-60s. Once the kinks are worked out, they will probably get to 80%. But that's no better than off-shore wind, and probably worse than tidal.
What is the problem that overpriced nuclear is supposed to solve?
Cardiff Lagoon could be built at a price around £50-£55. It would last 120 years minimum. Nuclear lasts 60 years tops - wind maybe 40 before it needs to be completely replaced - currently by foreign kit. Tidal is 86% domestic spend. BEIS admitted in a written answer that building a fleet of tidal lagoons would create 57,000 jobs. Maybe Boris will tell us how many jobs his fetish with wind power protects - outside the UK.
By every metric, this Government not building tidal lagoon power stations is stupid, stupid, stupid.....
£50-55 seems expensive as the only excuse not to build it, but then they're building nuclear for even more. So no excuse there.
Seems odd. Not wanting to commit one way or another?
An abstention doesn't of course mean a lack of commitment. Inevitably, there will be those who will criticise the Opposition whatever they do - if they support the Government, they are weak and not providing any Opposition, if they oppose, it is all about partisan politics at a time of national crisis.
Now, it seems they can't abstain either without criticism.
Let's suppose for one nanosecond Starmer and the Conservative rebels had engineered a Government defeat - what then? Obviously, it wouldn't have happened because the Conservative rebels would have caved not wishing to hand a victory to the Opposition or the Whips would have done the usual job with the thumbscrews.
What would it have meant? A short-term problem for Johnson but the charge against Labour of acting in narrow political rather than the genuine national interest could have been made. Abstention neutralises that charge as well as allowing the justifiable criticism of the Government to be made.
So: think of a reasonable looking amendment, tiers to get reviewed once a week or something, and make it the price of your support.
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
HM Opposition the clue is in the title
SKS (Sycophantic Knob sucker??)
The official title is Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
There’s a difference between the uptime for new nukes vs the aged plant currently operational in the uk.
Random question - a genuine one rather than a rhetorical one.
If a big vaccination program is literally only a few weeks from beginning (presumably), why do we care about novel types of mass community testing? Are they not coming too late, basically - did we not need them really when there was no vaccine close? Do such things not now have a very limited shelf-life usage?
If they are jabbing lots of people in Jan-Mar, does that not mean by Easter there won't be much point in mass community testing, or am I missing the obvious. Will they still have a place post vaccination?
It’s a great question. I suspect that it’s a bit like building Lancaster bombers in 1945. You plan for a huge need as one part of a strategy, but the war ends with you still building capacity you no longer need. There was no guarantee that vaccines would work, or be as promising as they are, so it makes sense to have huge screening available. We will of course use them in the next few months, but hopefully they will become more and more redundant as we go through winter and into spring.
Truth is that they’re a great deal cheaper and more effective than PCR for keeping community infection under control. Quickly, as we’ve seen in Slovakia. Done properly, it’s a quick way out of lockdown measures - which we’ve still got several months of, otherwise.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
SNP using money generated by Union to undermine said Union.
While all the time stoking up the grievance.
Quite a trick to pull.
It is just so nauseating giving a bonus to public sector workers while thousands of folk in the private sector are losing their jobs, businesses, livelihoods and houses. Truly beneath contempt to use the pandemic in this way.
Seems odd. Not wanting to commit one way or another?
An abstention doesn't of course mean a lack of commitment. Inevitably, there will be those who will criticise the Opposition whatever they do - if they support the Government, they are weak and not providing any Opposition, if they oppose, it is all about partisan politics at a time of national crisis.
Now, it seems they can't abstain either without criticism.
Let's suppose for one nanosecond Starmer and the Conservative rebels had engineered a Government defeat - what then? Obviously, it wouldn't have happened because the Conservative rebels would have caved not wishing to hand a victory to the Opposition or the Whips would have done the usual job with the thumbscrews.
What would it have meant? A short-term problem for Johnson but the charge against Labour of acting in narrow political rather than the genuine national interest could have been made. Abstention neutralises that charge as well as allowing the justifiable criticism of the Government to be made.
So: think of a reasonable looking amendment, tiers to get reviewed once a week or something, and make it the price of your support.
Again, this is about the politics.
You are of course right a well-drafted amendment "could" put the Government under pressure but the net effect would be to rally the troops to the flag or allow them to be "bought off" by a few concessions on amounts of money for hospitality perhaps. The amendment falls and Starmer is left high and dry.
This is why the abstention works - it maximises the rebellion (the Conservative backbenchers know they won't defeat the Government so they can rebel with impunity which in turn makes Johnson look weak and his Party look divided at a time of crisis). Starmer isn't the Government (we all know that). He can criticise aspects of the Government's response (especially those which resonate with the wider electorate) whilst at the same time looking "sensible" (not trying to make too much political capital out of a national crisis).
Starmer needs above anything else for the electorate to think of him as a potential Prime Minister - that's half the battle. Aided by a moderate programme and with the tide running out for populism, he is positioning himself ads the sensible alternative after a decade and half of Conservative Government by 2024.
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
HM Opposition the clue is in the title
SKS (Sycophantic Knob sucker??)
The official title is Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
Have just been chatting to Betfair (not the easiest thing in the world to do but I managed it) and it sounds like they may settle Arizona 'soon'.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases, recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
What the strike price would be is very relevant to all this. Some people here seem to think it would be cheap but BEIS seem to think it would be expensive.
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
You blame it on civil servants but the government decides these things.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
HM Opposition the clue is in the title
SKS (Sycophantic Knob sucker??)
The official title is Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
Loyal to the Crown, not to the government.
Everyone who watches the first series seems to stay loyal to the Crown.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
You blame it on civil servants but the government decides these things.
They really don't..... The report prepared by civil servants which went up for Theresa May's decision on tidal lagoons was a fantastic hatchet job. One number was £30 billion wrong - in favour of nuclear against tidal. Another was £60 billion wrong - in favour of nuclear against tidal.
If you think they were objective, go speak to Charles Hendry - who prepared the report into tidal lagoons.
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
Why has the cost come down by 67%? Seems hard to believe.
And does your £50 include running and maintenance costs?
Do you agree that if it's £150 then there's no justification to build it?
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
It's all about grievance. Even when they have the power to do what they demand, they complain it's all Westminster's fault
You sound a bit...aggrieved.
Not really, just pointing out the obvious.
If it's obvious why does it need pointed out?
To generate discussion on the topic? I don't know. I notice you haven't actually commented on the matter itself, instead questioning why others are talking about it.
Careful. I was asking that question earlier and apparently it's a hugely sensible strategy for the Opposition to support the government when otherwise it might be defeated.
HM Opposition the clue is in the title
SKS (Sycophantic Knob sucker??)
The official title is Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
Loyal to the Crown, not to the government.
Everyone who watches the first series seems to stay loyal to the Crown.
It's because it's such a brilliantly portrayed documentary that faithfully reenacts exactly what happened isn't it?
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
Have just been chatting to Betfair (not the easiest thing in the world to do but I managed it) and it sounds like they may settle Arizona 'soon'.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases, recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
It's all about grievance. Even when they have the power to do what they demand, they complain it's all Westminster's fault
You sound a bit...aggrieved.
Not really, just pointing out the obvious.
If it's obvious why does it need pointed out?
To generate discussion on the topic? I don't know. I notice you haven't actually commented on the matter itself, instead questioning why others are talking about it.
You 'don't know'? I think I'll give this high wattage discussion a miss.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
How he expects Johnson to fix a problem within the gift of Sturgeon is a bit of a mystery....why not gross it up? The Scottish government will get the money back anyway....
Comments
It will be the same with Brexit. Labour has nothing to be proud of, but in the unlikely event it is not a success it will be the Tories that get the kicking, and rightly so.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-tiers-covid-lockdown-oxford-vaccine-christmas/
Starmer can't actually influence Brexit policy, not with a government majority of 80. Frankly, BoJo has won the right to manage his vision of the nation.
And any concessions from Brexit towards Reality have to come from the government, not be forced on them by the opposition. If a Stab In The Back is coming, Johnson et al must have their fingerprints on the dagger.
As someone who wants the best for the UK, that looks suboptimal. But it's also honest; influence what you can, but accept that control of everything in the modern world is a fever dream.
I'm a weirdo,
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here.
Thinking of Blair, we should get him and his family to refuse to confirm whether they've had the vaccine. Because that worked so well the last time he did it.
I think we're heading for a clustershambles, and I wish it could be softened. But I get why Starmer has concluded that he might as well keep quiet while Johnson takes the rope he wants, even if it is likely to hurt Britain and lead to Johnson hanging himself. Sometimes, you have to let people or nations hurt themselves ☹️.
As for me, all I can do is hope/pray.
Perhaps as they don’t understand business almost as much as the current Tories don’t care ?
A substantial meal worth visiting the town for.
Ignoresthemman more like.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/well/live/coronavirus-days-5-through-10.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
The government could stop this. But don't understand and don't care.
The current baseload electricity price in the UK is about GBP24.
Wind is guaranteed prices of around GBP40-60 (depending on whether it's on-shore or off-, and when it was commissioned)
Tidal would get built at a sub GBP60 price
Hinckley Point C is about GBP90. And it's on an escalator, so the price rises every year.
Ahhhh, you might say, but nuclear is very reliable. Which is simply not true. EPRs are currently managing uptimes in the mid-60s. Once the kinks are worked out, they will probably get to 80%. But that's no better than off-shore wind, and probably worse than tidal.
What is the problem that overpriced nuclear is supposed to solve?
Unless of course Johnson's deal is world beating and should be supported. So abstain it is!
If a big vaccination program is literally only a few weeks from beginning (presumably), why do we care about novel types of mass community testing? Are they not coming too late, basically - did we not need them really when there was no vaccine close? Do such things not now have a very limited shelf-life usage?
If they are jabbing lots of people in Jan-Mar, does that not mean by Easter there won't be much point in mass community testing, or am I missing the obvious. Will they still have a place post vaccination?
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1333475426577100804?s=20
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
Considering polls show 80% back the restrictions there seems to be nothing to be won from the public in rejecting them. On the other hand setting Tory backbenchers against their PM seems to be successfully setting up divisions for going forwards.
By every metric, this Government not building tidal lagoon power stations is stupid, stupid, stupid.....
Now, it seems they can't abstain either without criticism.
Let's suppose for one nanosecond Starmer and the Conservative rebels had engineered a Government defeat - what then? Obviously, it wouldn't have happened because the Conservative rebels would have caved not wishing to hand a victory to the Opposition or the Whips would have done the usual job with the thumbscrews.
What would it have meant? A short-term problem for Johnson but the charge against Labour of acting in narrow political rather than the genuine national interest could have been made. Abstention neutralises that charge as well as allowing the justifiable criticism of the Government to be made.
OK, I'd understood the divergence to be over a longer period, so if b you did March- September, for instance, the R rate being systematically 0.05 out would yield an order of magnitude difference over that period.
I've generally seem the daily increase rate quoted as, say, between 2 and 4%, so quite a range v of increases could result from that over a few weeks. I guess the natural thing to do would be to take the mid point and integrate using that.
I can think of a couple of reasons why, longer term, this might not sit on the mid point. One is the tendency of R to drift higher over a period of time between role changes, as a high incidence, low R location contributes progressively less to overall R relative to a low incidence, high R location. If left to continue, R would tend asymptotically to the higher local R value. But then, after rule changes I'd guess SAGE would be reluctant to reduce their figures until there was clear evidence in the data, which would be an opposing effect.
In any case. I think the assumption that the actual R should sit neatly in the middle of the range the ONS produce is not a given.
I'm not saying the modellers are right here, just trying to think of things that might need going on.
One more thought: on the ONS weekly infection survey: there were two weeks in early September when the raw data for the number of people infected looked to be on. opposite edges of the 95% credible interval - that could have skewed things quite a bit.
SKS (Sycophantic Knob sucker??)
Scotland's is significantly worse than England's. Would be ironic if, after all the self-regarding preening of Sturgeon and Drakeford, they ended worse off than Boristan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55120734
While all the time stoking up the grievance.
Quite a trick to pull.
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1333486072072974337
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1333489578188136455
Done properly, it’s a quick way out of lockdown measures - which we’ve still got several months of, otherwise.
You are of course right a well-drafted amendment "could" put the Government under pressure but the net effect would be to rally the troops to the flag or allow them to be "bought off" by a few concessions on amounts of money for hospitality perhaps. The amendment falls and Starmer is left high and dry.
This is why the abstention works - it maximises the rebellion (the Conservative backbenchers know they won't defeat the Government so they can rebel with impunity which in turn makes Johnson look weak and his Party look divided at a time of crisis). Starmer isn't the Government (we all know that). He can criticise aspects of the Government's response (especially those which resonate with the wider electorate) whilst at the same time looking "sensible" (not trying to make too much political capital out of a national crisis).
Starmer needs above anything else for the electorate to think of him as a potential Prime Minister - that's half the battle. Aided by a moderate programme and with the tide running out for populism, he is positioning himself ads the sensible alternative after a decade and half of Conservative Government by 2024.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases,
recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
Everyone who watches the first series seems to stay loyal to the Crown.
If you think they were objective, go speak to Charles Hendry - who prepared the report into tidal lagoons.
And does your £50 include running and maintenance costs?
Do you agree that if it's £150 then there's no justification to build it?
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic/
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
I think I'll give this high wattage discussion a miss.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1333477011331936259?s=20
How he expects Johnson to fix a problem within the gift of Sturgeon is a bit of a mystery....why not gross it up? The Scottish government will get the money back anyway....