If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
French aren’t playing games. They are winning them.
Macron has ridden over the hill like cavalry to rescue us from no deal, by forcing Boris to cave on fishing, as Boris has been surrendering the last 24 hours taking fright at those lorry queues
I rarely agree with you, however nail and head springs to mind, in this instance.
You do understand it is still a big win for Johnson, don't you?
When the History of Brexit comes to be written, the odious, toad-like qualities of Guy Verhoefwpffww will be a colourful footnote. He manages to embody everything dislikeable about the EU into one human persona. Impressive.
He certainly excels at winding up Brexiteers.
He also excels at making neutral or uncertain people become Leavers. I’ve witnessed it. So it’s a bit self-defeating, from his perspective
If there is ever any attempt to reverse Brexit you can be sure that the thoughts of Guy will feature heavily in the campaign against it.
No problem. We'll counter with the thoughts and accurate predictions of Daniel Hannan.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patients who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Viruses generally evolve to faster spreading, less dangerous strains, don't they? there's an article in the Telegraph suggesting lockdowns are preventing this, and effectively incubating the more dangerous strains.
Which pretty much everybody in the Western World establishment and government better effing hope is not true. Because if it is.....
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
The fact that Manston airport, 18 miles away from Dover, has been turned into a huge lorry park for up to 4,000 lorries is everything to do with Brexit and nothing to do with Covid.
The fact that it is in use today is all about Covid though
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
It wasn't "first detected in September"
After it had been identified they went back through old samples to try to find the earliest - which was from September.
When the Guernsey CMO was asked today whether the variant was present in the island she said they'd sent the samples to the UK for mapping - but that takes weeks.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Also worth pointing out that Hannan did indeed campaign for us to remain in the Single Market. His preference which he expressed in writing and interviews going right back to long before the referendum campaign and which he repeated afterwards during negotiations was for the UK to adopt the Swiss model of being inside EFTA and in the Single Market via bilateral treaty but outside the EEA. As a fall back he was happy with the Norway model.
Edited to remove a wonderful if completely unintentional spelling error "The Swizz model"
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
No new measures would be needed, just better compliance with existing ones.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Also worth pointing out that Hannan did indeed campaign for us to remain in the Single Market. His preference which he expressed in writing and interviews going right back to long before the referendum campaign and which he repeated afterwards during negotiations was for the UK to adopt the Swizz model of being inside EFTA and in the Single Market via bilateral treaty but outside the EEA. As a fall back he was happy with the Norway model.
If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
French aren’t playing games. They are winning them.
Macron has ridden over the hill like cavalry to rescue us from no deal, by forcing Boris to cave on fishing, as Boris has been surrendering the last 24 hours taking fright at those lorry queues
I rarely agree with you, however nail and head springs to mind, in this instance.
You do understand it is still a big win for Johnson, don't you?
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
They didn't get it wrong at all.
I think they got it completely wrong. May's deal could have been modified later on via a caretaker Government to be a proper Customs Union.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
If it hadn't been for Iraq he'd be remembered much better. Devolution etc.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan has been wrong on almost everything that he has voiced an opinion on, from climate change to covid and brexit. He's a talker, not a thinker.
This piece always bears re-reading, it's hilarious.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Indeed. As I do like reminding people I even wrote a thread about it for PB the day after Leave won. Sadly no one seems to have been listening.
Certainly not the Tory party who voted that option down in the House of Commons 'meaningful votes'. The majority of Labour MPs, who voted for it, were perhaps listening to you. Unfortunately most Tories were set on a maximal version of Brexit instead of trying to unite the country.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
They didn't get it wrong at all.
I think they got it completely wrong. May's deal could have been modified later on via a caretaker Government to be a proper Customs Union.
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
It wasn't "first detected in September"
After it had been identified they went back through old samples to try to find the earliest - which was from September.
When the Guernsey CMO was asked today whether the variant was present in the island she said they'd sent the samples to the UK for mapping - but that takes weeks.
OK but was present in the UK in September and viruses presumably don;t wait to be detected to spread. And we had a lockdown for much of November. Which presumably might have slowed it down?
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
To be fair, a lot of Remainers did advocate for Norway+ (not all but a lot) but Mrs May boxed herself in the wrong end of the party.
If she'd gone with the more centrist contingent and with Labour she'd have had a massive majority to get Norway+. She got caught up in the ERG/Daily Mail contingent and we will always pay for that.
As a diehard but now-reconciled to leave remainer, I don't mind Guy Verhostadt. Except that whenever I see him I can't help thinking he looks rather like the awful David Mellor in his prime, albeit without the Chelsea kit on. Most disconcerting. Probably just me.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
They did push for that. We had a vote on it which most Labour MPs supported but the Tories voted down. I know you're new to this website but do try to keep up.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them.
It doesn't matter whether he was "given" them or "earned" them.
What matter is what he did with them, what survived in the long term. And that is minuscule.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Like Obama and US politics.
Obama "floated through US politics like a turd on a river".
An odd picture for the process of getting health care through a hung congress and inheriting an economy in the toilet and handing it over strong and balanced to bring to mind.
Dread to think what your image of Donald J Trump is!
An entire river of shit.
Running into a sea of piss, merging into a great ocean of - let's not get too sophisticated - shit and piss.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
They didn't get it wrong at all.
I think they got it completely wrong. May's deal could have been modified later on via a caretaker Government to be a proper Customs Union.
So can any deal.
Well I mostly agree with that, hence why I am supporting passing Johnson's deal now. Now it's No Deal or Johnson's deal, hence why Labour must vote for it.
If all it does is stop "Labour opposes Brexit" that will be a good start in winning back the Red Wall, which some here like to make complicated but in reality it's Brexit + Corbyn. One is gone, the other can be resolved. Then Labour can move on.
As a diehard but now-reconciled to leave remainer, I don't mind Guy Verhostadt. Except that whenever I see him I can't help thinking he looks rather like the awful David Mellor in his prime, albeit without the Chelsea kit on. Most disconcerting. Probably just me.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
Yes. We'll need to get away from the idea that schools simply must be kept open though.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
They did push for that. We had a vote on it which most Labour MPs supported but the Tories voted down. I know you're new to this website but do try to keep up.
TIG deserve a lot of blame, CU would have passed if it weren't for them.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patients who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Viruses generally evolve to faster spreading, less dangerous strains, don't they? there's an article in the Telegraph suggesting lockdowns are preventing this, and effectively incubating the more dangerous strains.
Which pretty much everybody in the Western World establishment and government better effing hope is not true. Because if it is.....
That is true in general, but evolution tends to walk more like a drunken spider than in a straight line.
I think the Telegraph's argument is pretty much nonsense, because: (1) it implies first that we know how this specific virus will mutate within a specific time period (because of that general observation on how viruses evolve) - we do not; and (2) it implies that the correct response is just to let it rip. We know where that leads.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Indeed. As I do like reminding people I even wrote a thread about it for PB the day after Leave won. Sadly no one seems to have been listening.
Hannan certainly expected a Norway style Brexit. At least initially.
It was all screwed up by Theresa bloody May and her insane Red Lines
No. Norway didn't deliver- no pure sovereignty, no mod Atlantic freedom, no Number 10 for Boris. We'd have got MAY UNBELLYFEEL BREXIT and her Premiership would have been even shorter and less dignified than it turned out.
(The earlier trouble is that Hard and Soft Brexiters each planned to double cross their referendum allies after the vote. The Softies plan- ally with hardnuts to win the referendum and remainers to win the peace- was cunning, but underestimated the power of pure bloody-mindedness.)
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
No new measures would be needed, just better compliance with existing ones.
Surely the evidence points only to delay in all these instances. The virus has its way with us, eventually, whatever we do.
Its just a question of when. And the faster moving, less virulent strains actually act sort of like a vaccine, getting to us quicker than the nasty strains
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
To be fair, a lot of Remainers did advocate for Norway+ (not all but a lot) but Mrs May boxed herself in the wrong end of the party.
If she'd gone with the more centrist contingent and with Labour she'd have had a massive majority to get Norway+. She got caught up in the ERG/Daily Mail contingent and we will always pay for that.
Sadly ironic given the fact she’s a Remainer. Her mulish stupidity shunted the country into exactly the wrong corner.
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
It wasn't "first detected in September"
After it had been identified they went back through old samples to try to find the earliest - which was from September.
When the Guernsey CMO was asked today whether the variant was present in the island she said they'd sent the samples to the UK for mapping - but that takes weeks.
OK but was present in the UK in September and viruses presumably don;t wait to be detected to spread. And we had a lockdown for much of November. Which presumably might have slowed it down?
Which is why its only emerging now?
Don't you understand exponential growth?
Doubling from 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 cases is relatively undetectable noise
Doubling from 1024 > 2048 > 4096 > 8192 is very noticeable.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
Yes. We'll need to get away from the idea that schools simply must be kept open though.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Hindsight is 2020 they say.
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
They didn't get it wrong at all.
I think they got it completely wrong. May's deal could have been modified later on via a caretaker Government to be a proper Customs Union.
Wouldn't have needed to be I think - the backstop gave us the best of all worlds
As a diehard but now-reconciled to leave remainer, I don't mind Guy Verhostadt. Except that whenever I see him I can't help thinking he looks rather like the awful David Mellor in his prime, albeit without the Chelsea kit on. Most disconcerting. Probably just me.
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
To be fair, a lot of Remainers did advocate for Norway+ (not all but a lot) but Mrs May boxed herself in the wrong end of the party.
If she'd gone with the more centrist contingent and with Labour she'd have had a massive majority to get Norway+. She got caught up in the ERG/Daily Mail contingent and we will always pay for that.
No, Labour, especially under Corbyn, were never going to act responsibly in this. It is to their eternal shame that they went through the lobbies with Steve Baker, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Francois and all the other loons to torpedo a sensible outcome.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Indeed. As I do like reminding people I even wrote a thread about it for PB the day after Leave won. Sadly no one seems to have been listening.
Hannan certainly expected a Norway style Brexit. At least initially.
It was all screwed up by Theresa bloody May and her insane Red Lines
I completely agree.
I always thought we'd end up in EFTA on a semi-permanent basis too - presumably with a 1 year resignation clause. We'd have been out of 'ever closer union' and the worst aspects free movement could have been dealt with via the benefits system (tax credits in particular).
I don't know whether May's stupid 'red lines' were to blame or those that refused to compromise on the remain side after the vote. The indicative votes were a particularly low point.
And the Lib Dems of course, they couldn't have done a worse job in 2018/2019 of being rubbish and unappealing.
Revoke. Remember? That was their policy. Not just ignore the referendum by having another one to reverse it, but simply ‘Revoke’. Cancel democracy. Insanity
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patient who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Interesting and persuasive, thankyou. Given this increased transmissibility, do you think there is any hope of containing the new variant - regionally or internationally?
No new measures would be needed, just better compliance with existing ones.
Surely the evidence points only to delay in all these instances. The virus has its way with us, eventually, whatever we do.
Its just a question of when. And the faster moving, less virulent strains actually act sort of like a vaccine, getting to us quicker than the nasty strains
But only if we let them?
And how many die before those fast transmitting, less virulent strains evolve - if it ever does? Better to keep measures in place, increase compliance, and get the vaccine out.
Evolution is a complex adaptive system. As such, it is not deterministic. We cannot aver that, because there is an observed general case, that is what WILL happen. It may, it may not.
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Not sure why you've liked the post, @Phil_Thompson - leaving without a deal is going to be an absolute fucking disaster.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
No Tory PM could done soft Brexit and survived. And for a critical mass of Remainers, PM Corbyn was a worse prospect than hard Brexit. IMO the fiendish political dynamics led inexorably to where we are. This Johnson deal. No-one's especially to blame.
He was part of the campaign that ran and won the referendum.
And went on live TV to claim he wasn't
Nope. He was part of Vote Leave - in fact he was one of its founders. Farage had nothing to do with it.
I don't recall him going on TV to say he wasn't part of Vote Leave.
But he did say we would stay in the Single Market.
I have always been of the view that Norway+ from 2016 onwards would have been satisfactory to well over 60% of the country.
Indeed. As I do like reminding people I even wrote a thread about it for PB the day after Leave won. Sadly no one seems to have been listening.
Hannan certainly expected a Norway style Brexit. At least initially.
It was all screwed up by Theresa bloody May and her insane Red Lines
I completely agree.
I always thought we'd end up in EFTA on a semi-permanent basis too - presumably with a 1 year resignation clause. We'd have been out of 'ever closer union' and the worst aspects free movement could have been dealt with via the benefits system (tax credits in particular).
I don't know whether May's stupid 'red lines' were to blame or those that refused to compromise on the remain side after the vote. The indicative votes were a particularly low point.
It was May's failure to speak to remainers at all, other than "sit down and shut up" that led to where we are now.
A vast majority of the country would have been happy with what you describe. Arch Remainer me included.
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Not sure why you've liked the post, @Phil_Thompson - leaving without a deal is going to be an absolute fucking disaster.
He thinks No Deal is an excellent outcome. It's hard to argue with somebody so far down that rabbit hole.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
Indeed, whereas serious scientists suggest that it is precisely because of Britain's superior genomics capabilities that we have identified (and reported promptly, unlike most countries) this strain so early.
So Britain is being criticized for being both competent and honest. Not exactly what global health needs in dealing with a pandemic.
Why are we so worried about this particular strain, out of the thousands of mutations every virus goes through?
What makes this strain so special?
As far as I have read, it has many more mutations than most strains - 17 genotypic changes of which 12 translate into phenotypic changes. The issues:
- The key mutation, a deletion, seems to have evolved independently at least three times, including in both the London and South African new variants. This is highly indicative of a consequential mutation that is beneficial to the strain's propagation relative to other strains. - The deletion seems to improve marginally the virus' ability to resist the immune response to it, perhaps increasing an infected person's ability to infect others by several hours. Just this small increase in the infectivity window can contribute to greater transmissibility. The statistical correlation between this strain and new COVID transmissions, is AIUI, strongly suggestive that this strain is indeed significantly more transmissible rather than just out-competing other strains. - The number of new mutations in this strain, and the discontinuity between it and the rest of the evolutionary tree of COVID strains suggests that this strain accumulated mutations in one immune-compromised patients who suffered a prolonged infection (similar to how multi-drug resistant TB strains emerged from chronic TB patients in Russian prisons). This raises the prospect of future similar discontinuous mutations in other immune compromised patients if they suffer prolonged infections.
What this strain does not appear to do is make the disease worse, or the vaccines less effective.
Viruses generally evolve to faster spreading, less dangerous strains, don't they? there's an article in the Telegraph suggesting lockdowns are preventing this, and effectively incubating the more dangerous strains.
Which pretty much everybody in the Western World establishment and government better effing hope is not true. Because if it is.....
That is true in general, but evolution tends to walk more like a drunken spider than in a straight line.
I think the Telegraph's argument is pretty much nonsense, because: (1) it implies first that we know how this specific virus will mutate within a specific time period (because of that general observation on how viruses evolve) - we do not; and (2) it implies that the correct response is just to let it rip. We know where that leads.
In terms of the numbers who die of covid and also through neglect of other diseases via the system being overwhelmed, I am not sure there is really that much difference.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
They did push for that. We had a vote on it which most Labour MPs supported but the Tories voted down. I know you're new to this website but do try to keep up.
TIG deserve a lot of blame, CU would have passed if it weren't for them.
Yes they were idiots, but numerically it was Tory opposition to compromise that killed off the Norway option. It wasn't all May's fault either, I don't remember her red lines being vociferously opposed by her party - who saw ending free movement as the means of converting 'red wall' Leave voters to the Tory party permanently.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Not sure why you've liked the post, @Phil_Thompson - leaving without a deal is going to be an absolute fucking disaster.
He thinks No Deal is an excellent outcome. It's hard to argue with somebody so far down that rabbit hole.
Phil_Thompson seems to be in league with Macron then.
Mr. Battery, some of us at the time pointed out that pro-EU MPs voting the same way as hardline sceptics were achieving the same result with the added stupidity of being ideologically opposed to the consequences of their voting behaviour...
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Not sure why you've liked the post, @Phil_Thompson - leaving without a deal is going to be an absolute fucking disaster.
He thinks No Deal is an excellent outcome. It's hard to argue with somebody so far down that rabbit hole.
Phil_Thompson seems to be in league with Macron then.
And the Lib Dems of course, they couldn't have done a worse job in 2018/2019 of being rubbish and unappealing.
Who will ever forget "Bollocks to Brexit"?
Not the SW voters for sure...
Yes, "Bollocks to Brexit" is up there with "Defund the Police" as the worst political slogan of all time. Likely to achieve almost the exact opposite of what their proponents would wish for.
So EU is willing to negotiate post New Year, this will never end
We'll have the reality of no deal on our hands at that point (Which impacts us more than them), and all the time pressure on the EU side is off - they can take as long as they want. Our negotiating position right now is as strong as it'll ever be. Folding to the EU's 25% would be the correct move here.
Mr. Battery, some of us at the time pointed out that pro-EU MPs voting the same way as hardline sceptics were achieving the same result with the added stupidity of being ideologically opposed to the consequences of their voting behaviour...
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
No Tory PM could done soft Brexit and survived. And for a critical mass of Remainers, PM Corbyn was a worse prospect than hard Brexit. IMO the fiendish political dynamics led inexorably to where we are. This Johnson deal. No-one's especially to blame.
No one is uniquely responsible, but that does not mean we can’t apportion culpability to various parties.
It’s a bit like the famous debate about the causes of the Great War, which some would blame on inflexible train timetables.
We are where we are because lots of people made tragic errors, or worse. I would certainly put TMay in that category, also David Cameron.
EU politicians are also guilty. They should have given Dave more.
Likewise, some Brexiteers must shoulder their own burden of responsibility. Gove and Boris spring to mind. And so on.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
Macron has proved his point and now needs to see sense regarding re-opening the French border to UK accompanied freight . Clearly Covid and politics have collided here.
Johnson’s no deal delusion though is looking decidedly ropey. He needs to stop the “ prosper mightily “ drivel because going for no deal now on the back of the chaotic scenes at Dover is going to look unhinged .
What with the mutant covid and the threat of a no deal this could be Johnson’s ERM moment .
The botched Christmas plans just add to the sense that the government is clueless and out of control .
If New Formula Raging Bull COVID-19 is as bad as feared, it will surely be everywhere in a few weeks.
Brace.
Considering it was first detected in September, it should have been everywhere weeks ago?
Pretty shabby performance for a raging bull strain?
It wasn't "first detected in September"
After it had been identified they went back through old samples to try to find the earliest - which was from September.
When the Guernsey CMO was asked today whether the variant was present in the island she said they'd sent the samples to the UK for mapping - but that takes weeks.
OK but was present in the UK in September and viruses presumably don;t wait to be detected to spread. And we had a lockdown for much of November. Which presumably might have slowed it down?
Which is why its only emerging now?
Don't you understand exponential growth?
Doubling from 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 cases is relatively undetectable noise
Doubling from 1024 > 2048 > 4096 > 8192 is very noticeable.
Yes I understand this of course , with the chess board and grain of wheat example being the most famous. But lockdowns surely interrupt this process as do tiers etc, as does the fact many people have already come into contact with this virus.
Indeed, so many cases are being detected that one day soon we will have more cases detected than people in England.
I don't share @Kinabalu optimism it's all a dog and pony show. I still think there's a real danger no deal may not be done at all. We're outside the EU. If we were negotiating within the EU, a deal would 100% be reached. But we're a 3rd party, so it doesn't follow.
Not sure why you've liked the post, @Phil_Thompson - leaving without a deal is going to be an absolute fucking disaster.
I disagree.
I might be wrong. But I don't think it will be a disaster and I'd rather no deal than a bad deal. I've been consistent on that for years have I not?
My first preference of course remains a good deal.
So EU is willing to negotiate post New Year, this will never end
I think that is what Barnier wants. I've said before that it is in the interests of the EU to drag negotiations into next year and give the UK a taste of No Deal. Yes, it'll hurt them, but it'll hurt us more, and they'll be banking on us crawling meekly back to the table rather than sweating it out. Ultimately, the EU reckon they'll get a better final deal that way, so worth the pain.
Of course in hindsight Labour should have just abstained on May's deal or quietly had the Northern MPs vote for it, that was a real misstep. I got that totally wrong.
Yes. With hindsight that would have been a good play. But this IS all hinsdsight. At the time we had a PM and a government in the hole. Oppositions do not tend to dig them out of it. Especially when they are polling ok, as Labour were at that point. They were focused on getting an election and winning it.
It's not all hindsight. I was advising Labour's best course was to abstain at the time, ad nauseum. Brexit would than have been a Blue on Blue shitfest.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
The irony of course is that Corbyn's gut instinct was right on this one issue and he was making Labour abstain early on.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
If we hadn't seen these scenes many times when we were members then perhaps he might have had a point.
Besides, what exactly has it to do with Brexit? Is this an admission that the French are playing games?
French aren’t playing games. They are winning them.
Macron has ridden over the hill like cavalry to rescue us from no deal, by forcing Boris to cave on fishing, as Boris has been surrendering the last 24 hours taking fright at those lorry queues
Boris Johnson was never under any circumstances going to do a No Deal "WTO" Brexit. Wouldn't have last year - hence Benn Act not needed and a grave Remainer error - and will not now, regardless of Macron or anyone else. Not a real world option for the Uk.
So EU is willing to negotiate post New Year, this will never end
After the new year it's no deal and then it's a completely different situation. The EU are making huge miscalculation if they believe the UK negotiating position doesn't immediately change once we're out.
Farage of course also went on Question Time and said "wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway", especially with regards to fish.
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
Perceptive. The campaign for a 2nd referendum - or even Revoke - was utterly catastrophic. It polarised the debate hideously, it was also profoundly undemocratic, of course. The idea you could have a referendum, then simply ignore the result - because you didn’t like it - and demand the people vote again until they gave you the result you DID like, should not have lasted a minute when exposed to the daylight of morality and logic.
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
No Tory PM could done soft Brexit and survived. And for a critical mass of Remainers, PM Corbyn was a worse prospect than hard Brexit. IMO the fiendish political dynamics led inexorably to where we are. This Johnson deal. No-one's especially to blame.
No one is uniquely responsible, but that does not mean we can’t apportion culpability to various parties.
It’s a bit like the famous debate about the causes of the Great War, which some would blame on inflexible train timetables.
We are where we are because lots of people made tragic errors, or worse. I would certainly put TMay in that category, also David Cameron.
EU politicians are also guilty. They should have given Dave more.
Likewise, some Brexiteers must shoulder their own burden of responsibility. Gove and Boris spring to mind. And so on.
To paraphrase Blackadder, we're getting this version of Brexit because it was too much effort not to have this version of Brexit. And the people who did try to reach out a third of the way- the Nick Boles, Ken Clarke types- had their careers blown up for their pains.
So EU is willing to negotiate post New Year, this will never end
I think that is what Barnier wants. I've said before that it is in the interests of the EU to drag negotiations into next year and give the UK a taste of No Deal. Yes, it'll hurt them, but it'll hurt us more, and they'll be banking on us crawling meekly back to the table rather than sweating it out. Ultimately, the EU reckon they'll get a better final deal that way, so worth the pain.
That's not going to work out well for them. If that's their calculation then they are being advised badly.
If we'd voted to remain, so no negotiations going on, but the exact same Covid events had happened, would the border to France be open? Or has this border closure got absolutely nothing to do with Brexit?
Absolutely nothing. As I mentioned a couple of times yesterday France has history of closing its borders in times of security or health emergency as do other countries. And quite right to. I see nothing to criticise the French over from the last 24-36 hours.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
Blair did what was electorally convenient for him in 1997. Nothing more, nothing less.
He hitched himself to Nigel Fucking Farage until the day after the vote, when he claimed we was never part of that same campaign.
Which is even worse. You got beat by Nige Farage
No shame in defeat at the hands of a very skillful and committed albeit rather unsavoury player of the game. Like losing to Don Revie's "Dirty Leeds" in the early 70s.
Yes. Farage is arguably the most skilful, certainly most influential, British politician of the last 20 years. But most ardent Remainers are too crazed to admit this.
He destroyed David Cameron’s career, for a start, which is quite poignant when you recollect Dave’s remarks about UKIP: ‘closet racists, loonies’ etc
Farage is marmite (and there's a fair bit I don't like about him) but he opened up a side of the conversation that none of the mainstream parties wanted to have.
We saw something similar all over Europe, of course.
Blair floated through our politics like a turd on the river.
Minuscule to you maybe but for millions earning by right the minimum wage not so much.
I still have a lot of difficulty containing my anger about Iraq.
So, for reasons of cleanliness, let's just leave it with the pretty picture of you and Tony "standing shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president", as you put it.
In fact, you even said you were glad. Urgghh.
I was after 9/11. Also agreed with ending the Iraq regime under Saddam Hussein. He who was gassing his own people , flouting UN sanctions. Blair had a choice after the new York attack to back the USA in Afghanistan or stand aside. The failure in Iraq was after the regime fell.
Blair gets excoriated for Iraq because it was a failure.
If it had been a success, no-one would care about the UN resolutions or the dossier.
Comments
He never in 2016 said we would be in the Single Market. Whatever badly edited together doctored videos say otherwise.
You do understand it is still a big win for Johnson, don't you?
Which pretty much everybody in the Western World establishment and government better effing hope is not true. Because if it is.....
I am happy that some Brexiteers promised to leave the SM (most certainly they did not advocate No Deal and it is totally wrong to claim otherwise) but the idea it was unified is nonsense.
They were as unclear as it was possible to be, in fact very much like Johnson's 2019 GE campaign.
Brexit has always been popular as a concept, once defined it loses support. I would not be surprised if the final deal or No Deal, ends up with minority support in the country.
And then I will be willing to say we should have listened to @Richard_Tyndall. I only wish I had stuck to my guns and advocated Norway+ in 2018 and not swapped to second ref.
It was all screwed up by Theresa bloody May and her insane Red Lines
Why are we spending fortunes mass testing school kids who aren't threatened by the virus??
it couldn;t be to use them as 'case fodder' for lockdowns, could it?
I'm glad your MPs got it wrong. Thank you for that.
After it had been identified they went back through old samples to try to find the earliest - which was from September.
When the Guernsey CMO was asked today whether the variant was present in the island she said they'd sent the samples to the UK for mapping - but that takes weeks.
Edited to remove a wonderful if completely unintentional spelling error "The Swizz model"
If Remainers had pushed for softest Brexit in 2018, that’s where we’d be now. Ah well.
Hopefully it'll be "Jerusalem" but the one I had in my mind was "Ingerland, Ingerland ..."
https://elpais.com/espana/2020-12-21/gibraltar-tendra-frontera-de-pasajeros-con-el-reino-unido-y-no-con-espana.html?ssm=TW_CC
Which is why its only emerging now?
If she'd gone with the more centrist contingent and with Labour she'd have had a massive majority to get Norway+. She got caught up in the ERG/Daily Mail contingent and we will always pay for that.
If all it does is stop "Labour opposes Brexit" that will be a good start in winning back the Red Wall, which some here like to make complicated but in reality it's Brexit + Corbyn. One is gone, the other can be resolved. Then Labour can move on.
I think the Telegraph's argument is pretty much nonsense, because: (1) it implies first that we know how this specific virus will mutate within a specific time period (because of that general observation on how viruses evolve) - we do not; and (2) it implies that the correct response is just to let it rip. We know where that leads.
We'd have got MAY UNBELLYFEEL BREXIT and her Premiership would have been even shorter and less dignified than it turned out.
(The earlier trouble is that Hard and Soft Brexiters each planned to double cross their referendum allies after the vote. The Softies plan- ally with hardnuts to win the referendum and remainers to win the peace- was cunning, but underestimated the power of pure bloody-mindedness.)
Its just a question of when. And the faster moving, less virulent strains actually act sort of like a vaccine, getting to us quicker than the nasty strains
But only if we let them?
https://twitter.com/remkorteweg/status/1341427049798483973?s=20
Doubling from 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 cases is relatively undetectable noise
Doubling from 1024 > 2048 > 4096 > 8192 is very noticeable.
Perfect cover for Boris.
I don't know whether May's stupid 'red lines' were to blame or those that refused to compromise on the remain side after the vote. The indicative votes were a particularly low point.
Evolution is a complex adaptive system. As such, it is not deterministic. We cannot aver that, because there is an observed general case, that is what WILL happen. It may, it may not.
Not the SW voters for sure...
We're all going to get rich on fish.
A vast majority of the country would have been happy with what you describe. Arch Remainer me included.
Its just a question of when you take the hit.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1341428172894683136?s=20
Downside on their position - 65% worse than on offer from the UK (ie zero fish)
EU juggling with chainsaws.
Likely to achieve almost the exact opposite of what their proponents would wish for.
Folding to the EU's 25% would be the correct move here.
The haggling over fish is now on a new thread
It’s a bit like the famous debate about the causes of the Great War, which some would blame on inflexible train timetables.
We are where we are because lots of people made tragic errors, or worse. I would certainly put TMay in that category, also David Cameron.
EU politicians are also guilty. They should have given Dave more.
Likewise, some Brexiteers must shoulder their own burden of responsibility. Gove and Boris spring to mind. And so on.
I still believe Corbyn wanted to ensure Brexit happened, one way or another. He didn't really care how hard it was.
Johnson’s no deal delusion though is looking decidedly ropey. He needs to stop the “ prosper mightily “ drivel because going for no deal now on the back of the chaotic scenes at Dover is going to look unhinged .
What with the mutant covid and the threat of a no deal this could be Johnson’s ERM moment .
The botched Christmas plans just add to the sense that the government is clueless and out of control .
Indeed, so many cases are being detected that one day soon we will have more cases detected than people in England.
I might be wrong. But I don't think it will be a disaster and I'd rather no deal than a bad deal. I've been consistent on that for years have I not?
My first preference of course remains a good deal.
It was Starmer that was a leading advocate for the second referendum die hard remainerism and rejecting May's deal. Corbyn abandoned his own principles - for possibly the only time in 40 years of politics - and paid the price for doing so.
It eventually came back to bite him.
We saw something similar all over Europe, of course.
If it had been a success, no-one would care about the UN resolutions or the dossier.