Punters losing confidence that there’ll be a deal before the end of the year – politicalbetting.com

System

Punters losing confidence that there’ll be a deal before the end of the year – politicalbetting.com

While everything is so focused on the pandemic punters on the Smarkets betting exchange are becoming less confident that Johnson will be able to reach a deal in the few days that are left.

Read the full story here

OnlyLivingBoy

Failing to reach a deal over fish would be so criminally stupid (on both sides) that it's still hard to imagine it happening.

eek

I think the issue is that its not just about Fish - France seem to want to attach finance to Fish (as they are close in the alphabet).

MarqueeMark

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

OnlyLivingBoy

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

Mexicanpete

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Be considerably less "twattish" than we have been?

WhisperingOracle

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Failing to reach a deal over fish would be so criminally stupid (on both sides) that it's still hard to imagine it happening.

And therefore paradoxically easy to conceive, in the current situation.

MarqueeMark

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

SouthamObserver

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Well, the government can deliver the mighty prosperity it has relentlessly promised us without a Brexit trade deal: lower taxes, higher public spending, lower debt levels, higher wages, better environmental, employment and food standard protections. And given the government's stellar performance over the last year, what could possibly go wrong?

Peter_the_Punter

eek said:

I think the issue is that its not just about Fish - France seem to want to attach finance to Fish (as they are close in the alphabet).

Not in French, mon vieux!

DavidL

Inevitably the cancelling of Christmas for many has taken all the headlines. Today is supposed to be the last day which would allow the European Parliament to ratify the deal and would presumably be seriously close to the last day that Parliament could be recalled for any legislation etc. but barely a whimper. We are all bored to tears with Brexit. If the EU are determined not to have a deal, whatever. Its just too boring to waste more time on and we have more important things to worry about.

WhisperingOracle

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Peter_the_Punter

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.

Mexicanpete

SouthamObserver said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Well, the government can deliver the mighty prosperity it has relentlessly promised us without a Brexit trade deal: lower taxes, higher public spending, lower debt levels, higher wages, better environmental, employment and food standard protections. And given the government's stellar performance over the last year, what could possibly go wrong?

But we have our sovereignty.

We no longer need permission from Brussels to close down our economy and cancel Christmas!

DavidL

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

IanB2

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

TrèsDifficile

Peter_the_Punter said:

eek said:

I think the issue is that its not just about Fish - France seem to want to attach finance to Fish (as they are close in the alphabet).

Not in French, mon vieux!

Passeport Financier isn't far from Pêche

kle4

DavidL said:

Inevitably the cancelling of Christmas for many has taken all the headlines. Today is supposed to be the last day which would allow the European Parliament to ratify the deal and would presumably be seriously close to the last day that Parliament could be recalled for any legislation etc. but barely a whimper. We are all bored to tears with Brexit. If the EU are determined not to have a deal, whatever. Its just too boring to waste more time on and we have more important things to worry about.

I certainly have plenty of blame to share around all this, but it is pretty clear months of talking have been a complete waste of time, since the issues of contention are stated to be few and yet progress has not been made. They both might well pull their finger out at the last last minute, but there's no excuse or justification for why it has gotten to this point if both sides want a deal as much as they say they do. They are posturing, constantly saying they want one without being willing to actually negotiate, just hold position and extend the time, rather than set a time and being forced to negotiate to meet it.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1340599233272045568

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1340588189849927687

WhisperingOracle

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The criminal database exclusion came after the May administration tried to place wider security issues into question as a negotiating tactic, as I remember it.

Peter_the_Punter

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

You are being partisan, I know, but I really do think that their reluctance to trust Johnson has been a factor in the EU's unwillingness to compromise.

I can hardly sneer though. I voted for him once, for Mayor of London, although in y defence I must point out the alternative was Ken Livingstone.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

DavidL

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Inevitably the cancelling of Christmas for many has taken all the headlines. Today is supposed to be the last day which would allow the European Parliament to ratify the deal and would presumably be seriously close to the last day that Parliament could be recalled for any legislation etc. but barely a whimper. We are all bored to tears with Brexit. If the EU are determined not to have a deal, whatever. Its just too boring to waste more time on and we have more important things to worry about.

I certainly have plenty of blame to share around all this, but it is pretty clear months of talking have been a complete waste of time, since the issues of contention are stated to be few and yet progress has not been made. They both might well pull their finger out at the last last minute, but there's no excuse or justification for why it has gotten to this point if both sides want a deal as much as they say they do. They are posturing, constantly saying they want one without being willing to actually negotiate, just hold position and extend the time, rather than set a time and being forced to negotiate to meet it.

Boris tried that in October, remember? It didn't work. There are too many on both sides who don't want a deal and want to "punish" the other side from the lunatics in the ERG to the Eurofanatics to whom leaving the project is simple heresy. As you say, if both sides had wanted a deal this would have been done and dusted months ago.

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Well, the government can deliver the mighty prosperity it has relentlessly promised us without a Brexit trade deal: lower taxes, higher public spending, lower debt levels, higher wages, better environmental, employment and food standard protections. And given the government's stellar performance over the last year, what could possibly go wrong?

Agreed. I look forward to it.

Exciting times.

glw

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

malcolmg

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

DavidL

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Excellent summary.

IanB2

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

You are being partisan, I know, but I really do think that their reluctance to trust Johnson has been a factor in the EU's unwillingness to compromise.

I can hardly sneer though. I voted for him once, for Mayor of London, although in y defence I must point out the alternative was Ken Livingstone.

For sure. I was a company negotiator myself. When one party (normally the unions, from my biased perspective) hadn't honoured a previous deal, it made negotiating the next one hugely more difficult, due to the lack of trust, soured personal relations, and the understandable desire of one or both parties to make sure that the new deal is nailed down with lots of safeguards and what we used to call conditionality.

malcolmg

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Accept your just desserts, you are getting what you desired in spades.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1340600803111940097

DavidL

WhisperingOracle said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The criminal database exclusion came after the May administration tried to place wider security issues into question as a negotiating tactic, as I remember it.

So why are we not being a part of it? Despite this being so obviously in everyone's mutual interest? Who is saying no? I think you will find it is not us.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1340596738323832832?s=20

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1340600390950240261?s=20

IanB2

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

HYUFD

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1340600747432525824

Philip_Thompson

Peter_the_Punter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.

I didn't realise we were members of NAFTA in 2016 let alone that we had voted to leave it?

I wonder why Europhiles are so adamant to call the EU the world's largest association when it isn't under any meaningful definition.

It's quite probable by the end of the decade that the EU won't even be one of the three largest trade blocs in the world: the USMCA, China and the CPTPP will likely all have a higher share of global GDP than the EU.

IanB2

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Carnyx

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

There is of course the issue of democratic legitimacy. Being ruled in the UK by a Tory Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland is no different in principle from being ruled in the UK by a Labour Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland. And it's not obvious that either will do much better than that.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

With the important difference that we don’t actually want a shitheap like Calais, but the French would quite like the fish.

SouthamObserver

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1340588189849927687

Yep, there is no deal that we can do with the EU that will satisfy the Brexit loons as there is no deal that can deliver victory over the EU. This has been obvious since the get-go. And because Johnson allowed himself to be captured by the ERG we are where we are.

eek

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1340600747432525824

Which is equally irrelevant as the strain will eventually spread across the country even if we did lock down today.

edmundintokyo

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK govt has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiating tactic multiple times, for instance.

Shattering any trust with the nonsense over breaking the previous deal and international law was the apex of absurdity

This is definitely bad, but it's a symptom of the broader problem, which is that Tory PMs constantly feel the need to play to the gallery domestically, and every time they do that they reduce the other side's trust in them and also constrict their own room for maneuver.

Nigelb

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

And yet irrespective of all of that, the government’s modellers were telling it that their Christmas arrangements would result in an R of 3, if widely followed by the population.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

When you leave a club and insult the members you can hardly hope to pick and choose the benefits you want them to let you keep using, whilst constantly insulting them into the bargain.

OnlyLivingBoy

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

Not a very self aware post. The UK's opening position on fish includes proposals to lock out French fishermen from fishing grounds they have fished in for centuries. Lots of stuff we are proposing looks quite unreasonable from the other side.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

YBarddCwsc

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

"could" and "be up to". You seem incapable of understanding any scientific nuance.

Johnson is not an epidemiologist or a scientist. He acts on the advice of SAGE.

You will have a point if you can show that Johnson was told by SAGE it was really urgent to shut dow on Saturday, yet he sat on his bum for days.

IanB2

Advertising email just arrived from B&Q. Their PR department isn't up with the news:


The Christmas table is the place where we all come together.

In countless households around the country, family, and friends, come together to share one of the most important meals of the year.

Make your memorable moments even more special by taking the time to create the perfect setting for your festive feasts.

Here are our top Christmas table decoration ideas to help you create the right look for you

Carnyx

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

With the important difference that we don’t actually want a shitheap like Calais, but the French would quite like the fish.

I suspect the French would be quite amenable to allowing Britain to annex Calais so long as the deal included the migrant camps, they would probably be keen to finance the wall around the new enclave too.

IanB2

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

"could" and "be up to". You seem incapable of understanding any scientific nuance.

Johnson is not an epidemiologist or a scientist. He acts on the advice of SAGE.

You will have a point if you can show that Johnson was told by SAGE it was really urgent to shut dow on Saturday, yet he sat on his bum for days.

Politics is the art of making timely decisions based on incomplete data.

TrèsDifficile

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

Are there people vote SNP as they'd rather have Sturgeon in charge, but would prefer to stay in the UK?

Philip_Thompson

Nigelb said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

And yet irrespective of all of that, the government’s modellers were telling it that their Christmas arrangements would result in an R of 3, if widely followed by the population.

I find that incredibly hard to believe given that R of 3 is what we had in February and early March prelockdown, pre restrictions, pre any awareness and with schools open.

I don't see how no more than three households mixing, with schools and many businesses closed, with all the other awareness we have now, for just five days, with hospitality still essentially shut or heavily restricted nationwide could possibly result in an R of 3.

DavidL

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

When you leave a club and insult the members you can hardly hope to pick and choose the benefits you want them to let you keep using, whilst constantly insulting them into the bargain.

Its in their own interests Malcom. Next time people at risk are trafficked out of Belgium etc and we don't pick them up because we don't know that they are "missing" or at risk who suffers? Belgian citizens. Next time some arseholes on holiday think its ok to tear up the joint and the host country can no longer use the EAW to bring them to justice who suffers? Next time some terrorist in France who has been ranting on the internet and been identified by GCHQ as a threat kills people in Paris because the data was not on a common security platform who suffers?

Its childish and stupid. Its that simple.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

Philip_Thompson

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

TrèsDifficile

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

With the important difference that we don’t actually want a shitheap like Calais, but the French would quite like the fish.

I suspect the French would be quite amenable to allowing Britain to annex Calais so long as the deal included the migrant camps, they would probably be keen to finance the wall around the new enclave too.

Wouldn't new migrant camps just then appear on their side of the wall?

noneoftheabove

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

"could" and "be up to". You seem incapable of understanding any scientific nuance.

Johnson is not an epidemiologist or a scientist. He acts on the advice of SAGE.

You will have a point if you can show that Johnson was told by SAGE it was really urgent to shut dow on Saturday, yet he sat on his bum for days.

Tiny, anecdotal and biased sample but I spoke to about ten people this week before Saturday, over half said it was silly to relax for Christmas, the rest didnt talk about it. They all got there without top level intelligence from SAGE.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

What sacrifice? We have said we want to remain a party. They have said no. If they are imposing some additional conditionality on our participation that is their choice, not ours.

Mexicanpete

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

"could" and "be up to". You seem incapable of understanding any scientific nuance.

Johnson is not an epidemiologist or a scientist. He acts on the advice of SAGE.

You will have a point if you can show that Johnson was told by SAGE it was really urgent to shut dow on Saturday, yet he sat on his bum for days.

The delay allowed him a magnificent win against Starmer at PMQs on Wednesday. A victory that was shouted from the PB rooftops. Surely worth the wait.

YBarddCwsc

Nigelb said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

And yet irrespective of all of that, the government’s modellers were telling it that their Christmas arrangements would result in an R of 3, if widely followed by the population.

Citation to a scientific paper or report is needed, please.

An R of 3 looks like absurd modelling, because the population's behaviour changes as a function of R?

Carnyx

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

Are there people vote SNP as they'd rather have Sturgeon in charge, but would prefer to stay in the UK?

Quite so. There is a bit of that, especially given her cautious approach to indyref2, but I don't remember any recent polling exploring that, and the qualitative mood music from the professional middle classes as reported by one or two here, and overall increase in polling for indy suggest this is less of a factor than it was.

Nigelb

https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1340505791841841152

IanB2

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

At the 2019 general election in Scotland the SNP got 45%, the Greens got 1% so 46% combined.

Therefore 54% of Scots still voted for Unionist parties combining the 25% for the Tories, 18.6% for Labour and 9.5% for the LDs and 0.6% for the Brexit Party and UKIP.

Peter_the_Punter

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

Yes, David is indeed overdoing it.

Many of us have repeatedly asserted that when the Show Trials begin first in the dock, representing the Eu, will be a certain Herr Juncker, guilty as charged.

None of that should however distract from the basic truth that the EU has a sovereign right to be every bit as effing stupid as us.

DougSeal

Hancock’s statement to the House on Monday -

“Over the last few days, thanks to our world-class genomic capability in the UK, we have identified a new variant of coronavirus which may be associated with the faster spread in the South East of England. Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variants.”

Hancock on the telly this morning says ministers only learnt about the infectivity of the new variant at 15.00 BST on Friday and Saturday's response was "one of the fastest decisions" taken during the pandemic.

So it’s a matter of degree.

Philip_Thompson

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

Big_G_NorthWales

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Listening to the media this morning it is clear HMG were advised on Friday by their scientists that a change was needed and hence yesterday's dramatic announcements

In all the criticism of Boris it has not been recognised that until his announcement yesterday the other 3 devolved nations were following the same path for Christmas, and Sturgeon and Drakeford only announced the same changes to Christmas after Boris's press conference.

It does look like coordinated action across the UK and while it does not suit the anti Boris campaigners the policy across the UK immediately before his press conference was the same

SouthamObserver

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

There is of course the issue of democratic legitimacy. Being ruled in the UK by a Tory Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland is no different in principle from being ruled in the UK by a Labour Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland. And it's not obvious that either will do much better than that.

If the SNP prevents a Labour-led government because it insists that securing an independence which would almost certainly lead to years of economic hardship is more important, then my guess is that at least a portion of the SNP vote would be imperilled. In Spain, a PSOE-led government in Madrid has led to the fracturing of the Catalan separatist movement. It has become much harder to argue that independence is necessary to allow Catalonia to escape the consequences of austerity imposed by a conservative-led Spanish state, to the extent that the ERC, the biggest Catalan nationalist party, recently helped get PSOE's budget through Parliament.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

What sacrifice? We have said we want to remain a party. They have said no. If they are imposing some additional conditionality on our participation that is their choice, not ours.

Jurisdiction of the CJEU. As is our sovereign right, we will not accept that it can have any remit in the UK (exc. Northern Ireland).

kle4

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

When you leave a club and insult the members you can hardly hope to pick and choose the benefits you want them to let you keep using, whilst constantly insulting them into the bargain.

Hmm. I think we'll need to remember that for other occasions.

gealbhan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Listening to the media this morning it is clear HMG were advised on Friday by their scientists that a change was needed and hence yesterday's dramatic announcements

In all the criticism of Boris it has not been recognised that until his announcement yesterday the other 3 devolved nations were following the same path for Christmas, and Sturgeon and Drakeford only announced the same changes to Christmas after Boris's press conference.

It does look like coordinated action across the UK and while it does not suit the anti Boris campaigners the policy across the UK immediately before his press conference was the same

“Terrifying new virus strain spreads” screams the on message Sunday Express

“New COVID virus is definitely, without doubt, no ifs or buts, 70% more infectious” says government?

Remember when the threat of Saddam Hussain was sexed up? Could this turn out to be the same as Tony Blair and his government overstating the threat of Saddam Hussain?

My conclusion is no.

Firstly, the government are clever to caveat their claims about new COVID strain (perhaps knowing their supporters and the media won’t use the caveats)

Secondly, government experts didn’t believe claims in Blair’s dodgy dossier, but medical experts today do believe the governments Xmas plans were bonkers, and are genuinely on board with the u turn, it’s the one they wanted.

Conclusion. Boris was in a hole, he is now out a hole, and regardless how he may have sexed up COVID he is now on side of public and science opinion so is safe.

Have a merry Christmas 😄

PS. Brexit deal to be announced Thursday for minimum scrutiny and quickest rubber stamp in history.

LostPassword

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

I voted for the Scottish Greens at the last general election, despite being a supporter of the Union, so it would equally be simplistic to count my vote as one for independence.

I really don't know what to do in the Holyrood elections as I would like to vote for the Greens again. Perhaps I will decide that the Climate is more important as a determinant of my vote.

glw

Nigelb said:

And yet irrespective of all of that, the government’s modellers were telling it that their Christmas arrangements would result in an R of 3, if widely followed by the population.

I'm not defending the Christmas plans or saying the PM wasn't advised to curtail the holiday. I'm disagreeing with the assertions that "we knew about the more transmissible variant ages ago". We knew the variant existed, but it has only become clear that it is responsible for the rise in cases within the last few days, even if our suspicions go back a several weeks.

Philip_Thompson

Peter_the_Punter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

Yes, David is indeed overdoing it.

Many of us have repeatedly asserted that when the Show Trials begin first in the dock, representing the Eu, will be a certain Herr Juncker, guilty as charged.

None of that should however distract from the basic truth that the EU has a sovereign right to be every bit as effing stupid as us.

Of course they do.

We have the right to walk away until they come to their senses.

As do they if that's what they think.

A few years WTO allow tempers to cool then build a clean FTA from scratch looking to get closer together rather than further apart may be the best route out of this.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

When you leave a club and insult the members you can hardly hope to pick and choose the benefits you want them to let you keep using, whilst constantly insulting them into the bargain.

Its in their own interests Malcom. Next time people at risk are trafficked out of Belgium etc and we don't pick them up because we don't know that they are "missing" or at risk who suffers? Belgian citizens. Next time some arseholes on holiday think its ok to tear up the joint and the host country can no longer use the EAW to bring them to justice who suffers? Next time some terrorist in France who has been ranting on the internet and been identified by GCHQ as a threat kills people in Paris because the data was not on a common security platform who suffers?

Its childish and stupid. Its that simple.

David the whole thing has been a shambles and given the way London has handled it then I can see why the EU are unhappy and will not bend over just to suit UK. The jingoism , war references and general stupidity have been breathtaking.

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

I knew you were young, Phil, but I had not clocked you for being 10.

MarqueeMark

Mexicanpete said:

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

"could" and "be up to". You seem incapable of understanding any scientific nuance.

Johnson is not an epidemiologist or a scientist. He acts on the advice of SAGE.

You will have a point if you can show that Johnson was told by SAGE it was really urgent to shut dow on Saturday, yet he sat on his bum for days.

The delay allowed him a magnificent win against Starmer at PMQs on Wednesday. A victory that was shouted from the PB rooftops. Surely worth the wait.

Now you're just being silly......

FF43

I am not sure Rishi Sunak is coming out too well from the pandemic. I guess it partly depends on whether schemes in other countries suffer the same level of fraud. But it fits in with a narrative of a government that tolerates corruption.



https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1340589220176510977

Carnyx

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

There is of course the issue of democratic legitimacy. Being ruled in the UK by a Tory Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland is no different in principle from being ruled in the UK by a Labour Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland. And it's not obvious that either will do much better than that.

If the SNP prevents a Labour-led government because it insists that securing an independence which would almost certainly lead to years of economic hardship is more important, then my guess is that at least a portion of the SNP vote would be imperilled. In Spain, a PSOE-led government in Madrid has led to the fracturing of the Catalan separatist movement. It has become much harder to argue that independence is necessary to allow Catalonia to escape the consequences of austerity imposed by a conservative-led Spanish state, to the extent that the ERC, the biggest Catalan nationalist party, recently helped get PSOE's budget through Parliament.

The actual policies are of course important politically. One would think that Labour and SNP policies have more in common than Tory and SNP. But it is Labour policy in Scotland almost invariably to oppose SNP policies (codified as the Bain Principle), with few exceptions - infamously so when the SNP policies are actually adopted from suggestions by Labour. So SKS would have to sort that out. There are also other potential conflicts - notably on Brexit and its consequences.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

What sacrifice? We have said we want to remain a party. They have said no. If they are imposing some additional conditionality on our participation that is their choice, not ours.

Jurisdiction of the CJEU. As is our sovereign right, we will not accept that it can have any remit in the UK (exc. Northern Ireland).

Why do we need to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU to have access to and contribute to a data base? Because the EU is insisting that we do. There is no other reason. They have that right and we have the right to say no. But it is their insistence.

This is so stupid that it will not remain the situation for long. I would guess this will be sorted out again by the end of 2021, whether there is a deal or not.

DougSeal

Say it loud, say it proud...

kinabalu

My take is unchanged. Talk of no deal "from UK sources" can be dismissed. It's hype. Moving from frictionless trade to WTO terms is a plan Z for the EU and is not an option at all for the UK. It will not be happening. Things might not get finished and ratified in time, in which case extension or implementation period, but there will be a deal. Intuition says so. Common sense says so. The behavioural evidence, past and present, says so. If only I could find a way to transmit my certainty on this into the heads of the millions of people who are understandably worrying about it. I'd love to be able to perform such a public service. Give something back.

malcolmg

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

There is of course the issue of democratic legitimacy. Being ruled in the UK by a Tory Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland is no different in principle from being ruled in the UK by a Labour Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland. And it's not obvious that either will do much better than that.

If the SNP prevents a Labour-led government because it insists that securing an independence which would almost certainly lead to years of economic hardship is more important, then my guess is that at least a portion of the SNP vote would be imperilled. In Spain, a PSOE-led government in Madrid has led to the fracturing of the Catalan separatist movement. It has become much harder to argue that independence is necessary to allow Catalonia to escape the consequences of austerity imposed by a conservative-led Spanish state, to the extent that the ERC, the biggest Catalan nationalist party, recently helped get PSOE's budget through Parliament.

There would be no loss to SNP, they owe nothing to Labour who have been at least as bad as the Tories re independence, the SNP and Scotland in general, they are equals in their desire to have no democracy for Scotland and keep us under the jackboot.
Either option is bad for Scotland.

Roger

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

When you leave a club and insult the members you can hardly hope to pick and choose the benefits you want them to let you keep using, whilst constantly insulting them into the bargain.

They should blackball the lot of us.

Carnyx

LostPassword said:

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

I voted for the Scottish Greens at the last general election, despite being a supporter of the Union, so it would equally be simplistic to count my vote as one for independence.

I really don't know what to do in the Holyrood elections as I would like to vote for the Greens again. Perhaps I will decide that the Climate is more important as a determinant of my vote.

Quite so, it is not possible to divide neatly into pro and anti indy blocs. And some people feel other things are more important. Though the Holyrood system is much fairer on the greens, so feel free to vote for them!

Talking about the Scottish Greens, did you see the news about Andy Wightman? It's not clear from the piece if he is going to stand as an independent MSP though I do hope so - he has done some really good work on land ownership and its abuse (targeting Labour councils as much as big landowners). I'd be tempted to vote for him on the List if I had the chance.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/18/scottish-greens-msp-resigns-claiming-intolerance-over-women-and-trans-rights

glw

IanB2 said:

glw said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

DavidL said:

If most of us could see this coming a mile away even if Boris and Nicola couldn’t presumably “most of us” didn’t make any plans that needed to be disrupted? Or is that too obvious?

Alternatively, governments dealing with a fast moving and complex situation got fractionally behind the curve and needed to catch up again. Or is that too simple?

The basic issue is one I posted on here last night and has been mentioned on Sky this morning. This new variant was identified in September. On Monday Hancock told the House it may be fuelling the rise in new cases. On Wednesday, however, Johnson was grandstanding about Starmer "wanting to cancel Christmas". Then we have yesterday's announcement. I think it is safe to say that on Monday (and perhaps earlier) there were good indications that this was going to be necessary. Yet they waited five days. That is not "fractionally" behind the curve. That is well behind the curve.

The new variant may have been identified in September but the consequences of it weren't known then.

NERVTAG reported on the R+0.4 on Thursday. Not in September, on Thursday.

As I understand it it goes like this.

1. We found the new variant early, and we've been tracking all the variants from the start. New variants in themselves are not significant.

2. When the November lockdown ended the limited effect of the lockdown in the South East started to ring alarm bells. This also conincided with the new variant becoming significantly more common in the region.

3. People started to wonder if the two things were linked, that the rise in cases was due to the new variant being more transmissible.

4. Modelling and analysis started a few weeks ago to try and get a handle on whether the new variant was responsible for the increasing cases.

5. Hancock raised the possibility of the new variant being responsible at the end of last week, and got criticised for it as quite a few scientists said "where's the evidence?"

6. NERVTAG reported at the end of this week that they had concluded that there was increased transmission due to the variant's mutation.


So it's absolutely true we knew about a new variant in September. But that is of no importance, as there are lots of variants. It was the ending of the November lockdown that highlighted a potential problem, and only at the end of this week did NERVTAG conclude the rise in cases were due to the mutations of the new variant. That's the important new information.

Boris Johnson told a Downing Street press conference on Saturday the new variant could be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

'Saturday' being 12 Dec.

Show me a webpage published before Saturday this week where he said that. Are you sure that wasn't an amendment to the page you keep mentioning?

I've gone straight to the horse's mouth, and found this from the 19th.

NERVTAG’s early analysis suggests the new variant could increase R by 0.4 or greater. Although there is considerable uncertainty, it may be up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-statement-on-coronavirus-covid-19-19-december-2020

The only published statements from the PM on the 12th are both about climate change.


The first mention of the new variant was by Hancock in the House of Commons on Monday the 14th.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/sharp-rise-in-coronavirus-numbers-and-a-new-variant

FF43

I think the new virus strain is somewhat a pretext. Obviously greater transmissibility is a concern, but the big increase in cases in parts of the UK isn't wholly or probably even mainly down to the new strain. It's easier for governments to say, Because of the new deadly virus strain, than to say, We mucked up.

Tres

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

Johnson is a shit. Even Corbyn would have been less of a disaster.

kle4

DougSeal said:

Say it loud, say it proud...

I really think holding an optimistic statement back in July against him verges on the unreasonable, since it was at least possible (heck, it was possible a month ago), and he isn't responsible for the new variant. He is responsible for not extending the November lockdown, which likely would have enabled 'back to normal' for Christmas if they were so set on that, and that, and not reacting very quickly to the rise post lockdown, are things to hold against him.

OldKingCole

DougSeal said:

Hancock’s statement to the House on Monday -

“Over the last few days, thanks to our world-class genomic capability in the UK, we have identified a new variant of coronavirus which may be associated with the faster spread in the South East of England. Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variants.”

Hancock on the telly this morning says ministers only learnt about the infectivity of the new variant at 15.00 BST on Friday and Saturday's response was "one of the fastest decisions" taken during the pandemic.

So it’s a matter of degree.

Trouble is, with statements like that, people turn off after 'world-class' (etc) because it's probably a pudding well over-egged.

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

I knew you were young, Phil, but I had not clocked you for being 10.

I knew someone would make that joke. My list:

Thatcher > Cameron or Boris* > Blair > Major > Brown** > May

* Too soon to tell yet if Boris will end up ahead or behind Cameron
** Brown is worst Chancellor of my lifetime. Never expected to rank a Tory below him as PM but May managed it and then some.

I may be partisan but not uber-partisan, I have a Tory as the worst and Blair ahead of two Tories.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

HYUFD is, for the nth time, deliberately forgetting that the Scottish Greens are also pro-independence, as are the Scottish Socialists, etc.

Yet he is happy to lump together Tory, Labour and LDs as an imaginary Unionist bloc, while forgetting that even now some of the voters Labour have are pro-indy.

At the 2019 general election in Scotland the SNP got 45%, the Greens got 1% so 46% combined.

Therefore 54% of Scots still voted for Unionist parties combining the 25% for the Tories, 18.6% for Labour and 9.5% for the LDs and 0.6% for the Brexit Party and UKIP.

Hmm, if you are so worried about percentages why aren't you campaigning for AV and PR at Westminster and for Mr Johnson's governmne to tbe a minority one? Until thjen, you have to accept your own party's criterion which ios bums on green leather seats in the HoC.

malcolmg

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

There is of course the issue of democratic legitimacy. Being ruled in the UK by a Tory Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland is no different in principle from being ruled in the UK by a Labour Party with about 20-25% of the vote in Scotland. And it's not obvious that either will do much better than that.

If the SNP prevents a Labour-led government because it insists that securing an independence which would almost certainly lead to years of economic hardship is more important, then my guess is that at least a portion of the SNP vote would be imperilled. In Spain, a PSOE-led government in Madrid has led to the fracturing of the Catalan separatist movement. It has become much harder to argue that independence is necessary to allow Catalonia to escape the consequences of austerity imposed by a conservative-led Spanish state, to the extent that the ERC, the biggest Catalan nationalist party, recently helped get PSOE's budget through Parliament.

The actual policies are of course important politically. One would think that Labour and SNP policies have more in common than Tory and SNP. But it is Labour policy in Scotland almost invariably to oppose SNP policies (codified as the Bain Principle), with few exceptions - infamously so when the SNP policies are actually adopted from suggestions by Labour. So SKS would have to sort that out. There are also other potential conflicts - notably on Brexit and its consequences.

Starmer has already shown he is hostile to Scotland, will block referendums and generally is just another privileged millionaire London arse. He will sort out nothing.

malcolmg

Tres said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

Johnson is a shit. Even Corbyn would have been less of a disaster.

Succinct and accurate assessment.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?

"being twattish" (aka negotiating) is fairly common in trade talks, I believe.

If the UK were negotiating in the same spirit as France, we would have yesterdy introduced the return of Calais into the mix.

With the same intention of arriving at No Deal.

The UK has negotiated in an absurd way very often ; it's held up co-operation on vital common security issues as a negotiation tactic multiple times, for instance.

That would be why we are being excluded from the security systems operated by Schengen and the EU as well as the criminal data base then despite being clear that we wanted to remain a part of both then? For goodness sake, get real.

The reality is that we are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to be included in them. That is our sovereign choice. We believe the upsides of participation are not worth the sovereignty sacrifices that such participation would entail.

That's not true. We have been clear. We want to be in them. The EU has said no. That is their sovereign right but it is absurd to see it as anything other than deliberate self harm on their part.

The desperation of so many on this board and in the media to blame our government for everything is almost an illness. Of course our government has made a lot of mistakes. The internal markets bill provisions were a serious mistake. But the EU has made many, many mistakes too. Their refusal to even discuss the matters on which we are still at loggerheads until the transitional agreement had been signed was probably the most stupid.

Come off it, David. Are you seriously suggesting that here are no circumstances under which the EU will allow the UK to participate? Of course we want to be in them. We want the benefits they bring. But we will not make the sovereignty sacrifices that participation entails. That is our sovereign choice. It is not an illness to point out this self-evident truth.

What sacrifice? We have said we want to remain a party. They have said no. If they are imposing some additional conditionality on our participation that is their choice, not ours.

Jurisdiction of the CJEU. As is our sovereign right, we will not accept that it can have any remit in the UK (exc. Northern Ireland).

Why do we need to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU to have access to and contribute to a data base? Because the EU is insisting that we do. There is no other reason. They have that right and we have the right to say no. But it is their insistence.

This is so stupid that it will not remain the situation for long. I would guess this will be sorted out again by the end of 2021, whether there is a deal or not.

Yes - as I said previously, we have decided that the benefits of participation are not worth the sacrifice of sovereignty that such participation would entail. For my part, I do not see the problem with making such sacrifices; just as I do not see the problem with the UK accepting that the CJEU should play a theoretical role in the functioning of the Unified Patent Court. But our elected government sees it otherwise, so we are not going to participate. Such is sovereignty.

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

My take is unchanged. Talk of no deal "from UK sources" can be dismissed. It's hype. Moving from frictionless trade to WTO terms is a plan Z for the EU and is not an option at all for the UK. It will not be happening. Things might not get finished and ratified in time, in which case extension or implementation period, but there will be a deal. Intuition says so. Common sense says so. The behavioural evidence, past and present, says so. If only I could find a way to transmit my certainty on this into the heads of the millions of people who are understandably worrying about it. I'd love to be able to perform such a public service. Give something back.

While I feel that a deal is more likely than not there is a part of me that would enjoy no deal just to see you eating some humble pie.

I wonder if the Germans have a word for that too?

Philip_Thompson

Tres said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

FPT
SouthamObserver said:

» show previous quotes
I doubt that the pressure for independence would be as great in Scotland if there were a Labour-led government in Westminster.

I think you are wrong, they are seen as Tory lites nowadays, almost as Tory as the Tories and as big liars as Tories. Both are seen as cheeks of the same arse.

Yet still 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at the general election last year

That's one bar the UK Tories can beat, with 56.4%

Not in England.

In England the Tories got more vote share than the SNP got in Scotland.

They got a grown up. Look what we got.

The second or third best PM this country has had in my lifetime.

And probably the third most transformative PM for this country since WWII.

Johnson is a shit. Even Corbyn would have been less of a disaster.

LOL! Very droll.

DavidL

FF43 said:

I think the new virus strain is somewhat a pretext. Obviously greater transmissibility is a concern, but the big increase in cases in parts of the UK isn't wholly or probably even mainly down to the new strain. It's easier for governments to say, Because of the new deadly virus strain, than to say, We mucked up.

I don't think that it is a pretext but it certainly changed the balance of the risks. Many, including many scientists, were strongly opposed to a Christmas relaxation from the beginning, viewing the price as too high. Others thought that although there was a price it was worth paying. But when the price goes up you need to have a rethink. And this variant does seems to have increased the price.

There is so much to criticise this government for. They are struggling in so many areas, almost overwhelmed by the challenges that they face. I am just not convinced that this, despite the frustrations caused, is one of the better examples of where they have called it wrong.