I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
I sincerely hope Starmer is biding his time. But it doesn’t look like it.
Depressing.
Starmer has a real problem with presentation. I reckon he’s clever at politics and policy, and is a strategic thinker. He’s put Labour in a much better place, already, when it comes to the culture wars, devolution, patriotism, Brexit, and so on. And he’s kept mostly everyone on board.
Trouble is he has good words to say, but he can’t say them. Jesus effing Christ he’s boring. He’s like a talking coffin lid on TV. You could give him the best joke in the world and he would deliver it like a boiler repairman describing your minor boiler problems.
And the more people see this, the less interested they are. They’d rather watch Boris being an idiot with amusingly mad hair. In an age of limited attention spans and 3 second opinion-formations, based on tweets and YouTube, this really matters. I don’t see how it is solvable. This is what Starmer is.
Very unfair. Starmer's always got his finger on the pulse, and knows exactly what to say to grab the attention of his audience:
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
If you analyse the Cameron project on its own terms, it failed more comprehensively and completely than comparable political figures. It's not as if he had some general success but there were unforeseen consequences that undermined his legacy. He was directly sowing the seeds of his own failure from the beginning.
Old people like to imply that it has always been this way. It helps them hold onto their wealth. I'm fairly right wing but I'd be 100% in favour of rinsing defined benefit pension holders with windfall taxes.
Do you have a DB pension?
I do, and I took a lower salary and gave up job opportunities to keep it. Why should I be penalised now?
OTOH, I'd think it perfectly fair to equalise the tax system and take NI contributions on unearned income and pensions (including mine).
Excactly so. When I got a job in the public sector I looked into the matter. It was made quite clear to me that the lower pay was to compensate for the presence of a DB pension, and indeed I found out that it was formalised by review panels. Swings and roundabouts. The private sector has fucked up big time, so now they want us screwed as well to camouflage it?
And that 'but' in MaxPB's should be 'therefore', no?
But I agree it's difficult to defend the failurte to reform NI. Also outrageous to give special allowances for bank savings, dividends, and land rental and so on. All, together with the IHT changes, tending to pander to middle-aged and older, often pensioner, better off, people with coinventional families who [edit] are owner-occupiers in expensive houses, ergo mainly in the SE. Demography remind you of any particular party?
I sincerely hope Starmer is biding his time. But it doesn’t look like it.
Depressing.
Starmer has a real problem with presentation. I reckon he’s clever at politics and policy, and is a strategic thinker. He’s put Labour in a much better place, already, when it comes to the culture wars, devolution, patriotism, Brexit, and so on. And he’s kept mostly everyone on board.
Trouble is he has good words to say, but he can’t say them. Jesus effing Christ he’s boring. He’s like a talking coffin lid on TV. You could give him the best joke in the world and he would deliver it like a boiler repairman describing your minor boiler problems.
And the more people see this, the less interested they are. They’d rather watch Boris being an idiot with amusingly mad hair. In an age of limited attention spans and 3 second opinion-formations, based on tweets and YouTube, this really matters. I don’t see how it is solvable. This is what Starmer is.
He does have the advantage of looking like he was cast to play the role of a PM in a mediocre BBC drama.
As one exhausted and frustrated by Boris's schtick, I'm perfectly content with Mr Boring, and I think he can win without being interesting if the situation is right - and after what will be 14 years of Tory led government, they really should be - but a little pizzazz wouldn't go amiss.
So good news about the border re-opening for anyone with a negative test. Now, where can you get a test close to Dover with a guaranteed turnaround quick enough for transit?
So good news about the border re-opening for anyone with a negative test. Now, where can you get a test close to Dover with a guaranteed turnaround quick enough for transit?
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
Treating EU citizens equally is easy, with probably the exception of Ireland given the common travel area. I find it extremely hard to believe this will be a significant sticking point. Still, not lots of gaps, just a couple.
Put it another way. If the UK thinks these issues are all minor, it can give way on all points. Maybe it will, but so far it hasn't
This joker was wanting Wenger out when we were finishing third in the league. I think he was anti-Emery, but felt he should show he can back a manager so is still backing Arteta.
Sorry, not sorry.
To be honest I think some of the Arsenal fandom could do with a good look at themselves.
For this vantage point AFTV seem happier when Arsenal are doing bad as it generates more views and thus more income.
I reckon most of AFTV's viewers are non-Arsenal fans.
Come back to me in a few weeks, we will regret not taking action now.
Time to lockdown the entirety of England.
I think the regional approach is better. I think that is how many countries have faced this issue. Locking down the entire country because of an outbreak in one area is a bit of overkill.
The Tier system has comprehensively failed. It's time to accept that.
Yet it works in other countries. Shutting down the entire country for an outbreak in one part is not the answer.
It's not an outbreak in one place, it's spreading everywhere.
You have your point of view, I think it's going to come to be a very poor one. We will see.
Then that argues for an adjustment to the restrictions in each region. It doesn't mean one size fits all.
I think a regional approach simply doesn't work, as I said, we will see.
The regional approach worked ok in Scotland. The problem is that the increased transmissibility of the new virus renders anything below tier 4 insufficient to keep R below 1, so I agree it needs to be tier 4 everywhere now.
And the jury is out on whether tier 4 is enough. Good job it will effectively be tier 5 for the next couple weeks due to the school holidays. God help us if that's not enough.
My amateur hunch, from reading the various expert views, is that Tier 4/5 will not be enough. Supercovid is that bad. I fervently pray I am wrong.
If I am right we are in for a horrific winter, until the vaccines really start to kick in, around March/April, when a significant proportion of the country will be invulnerable and the virus will find it harder and harder to spread
Um. Supercovid can't leap through walls.
If we all stay at home it can't spread.
The higher R is largely down to a longer asymptomatic period.
It hasn't grown legs.
But that’s exactly it. The only answer is Ultra-lockdown, a la Wuhan, where you weld everyone into their homes for several months. Is that do-able in a western democracy? I guess it will have to be, if it’s the only choice.
But wow. You can see why any politician - of any flavour - would be reluctant to go down that road.
That's impossible. I would suggest that the end state would be a lockdown almost the same as that in March and April, where people are allowed out of their homes only for work (if it can't be done from home,) for essential shopping, to attend medical appointments and for exercise. The main difference being that, now we've established that outdoor settings are very much safer than indoors, and that (socially distanced) outdoor exercise is good for physical and mental health, people should be encouraged to do as much of that as possible - crap weather allowing - and that should include shielders, who previously were effectively welded up inside their homes. And education must go back online, except for the relatively small numbers of children who could still be sent to school under the arrangements in force last Spring.
If that's not sufficient to stop the thing in its tracks, or at least slow it down enough to limit the damage whilst we race to get the vaccinations completed, then we're stuffed.
Lockdown 1 - in the Spring - got R down to 0.8. If the pessimistic take on Supercovid is correct, and the new variant increases R by 0.4-0.9 (and likely nearer 0.9) your lockdown would not be enough. Plenty of key workers would still have to leave home (we are not all lawyers or bankers) they would get infected, they will then hit the hospitals, and the health system crashes.
As I say, let’s hope the pessimistic take is very wrong.
The big difference between now and last March is the vaccines. Hopefully AstraZeneca willl be approved just after Xmas. That releases millions of jabs, and will offer real cause for cautious and guarded optimism
I was under the impression that the estimate was an increase in R0. That is, from 3 to 3.4-3.9.
If the spring lockdown reduced R from 3 to 0.8, then it reduced it by a factor of 3.75.
That equates to 0.90-1.04.
That’s doable.
DID the Spring lockdown reduce R from 3 to 0.8?
Genuine Q. I have no idea
Looks like somewhere in that region. Very, very loose guesstimation, but I just looked at the death stats and we went from 8 to 360 in 15 days. With a reproduction period of 5 days, that’d be an R of 3.55.
I’d bet that it’s massively variable, dependent on which days you choose, and dependent on where it’s scything through, but it’s indicative, at least.
I grabbed some from when it was declining, and went from 646 to 347 in 15 days. Again, genuinely random grab, on a highly variable metric with loads of different stuff going in, but that indicates an R of 0.81 (same assumptions).
Really loose stuff, but gives a broad indication, and does point to that or better.
The various schemes have already been extended until the end of the financial year. And he's been busy on his twitter feed.
Nevertheless, he was definitely getting more attention even than a Chancellor would normally get for making announcements. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told to dial it back, as certain people did not like him getting the attention.
I'd support the last sentence but... what steps would you recommend to make that happen?
Get institutional investors into the residential rental market in a bigger way. Expand social housing building but with a model based on discounts to market rent for limited time tenancies rather than life tenancies. And outwith the control of local councils
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
Treating EU citizens equally is easy, with probably the exception of Ireland given the common travel area. I find it extremely hard to believe this will be a significant sticking point. Still, not lots of gaps, just a couple.
Put it another way. If the UK thinks these issues are all minor, it can give way on all points. Maybe it will, but so far it hasn't
The visas one is particularly strange, because everyone will be treated the same way in that scheme regardless of nationality.
That won't happen until next week now. Somehow I don't see Johnson trundling back out on Christmas Eve to tell everyone who hasn't already been made to scrap their Christmas Day plans to do so.
He might spare us any nasty press conferences on Boxing Day and make an announcement on the 27th that Lockdown 3.0 will commence the following day.
The various 'Pandemic' board games have probably already sold out (I own 'Pandemic: Fall of Rome'.
I've only got a battleships board game.
It is a bit hit and miss.
I've still got my old Operation Sealion board game from student days. Rather topical now.
Shout out for Great Western Trail. A brilliant game.
Thanks for the tip I'll look out for that one.
The Ticket To Ride recommendation on here a couple of years ago proved very successful (back in the days when we could, y'know, meet up with friends and family).
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to m whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
Also a fair point, but what people are remembered for will not necessarily be fair in terms of achievement. That is, will it negate the perception of other achievements, or actually negate the achievements. It won't make a difference to perceptions, but will be important.
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
The problem is not just asset price inflation. The tax system has entrenched inequality and the rungs of the ladder are further apart than they used to be.
Most of the wealth stats are residential property, so you need to be careful. But an annual tax on residential property to replace other taxes is probably a good idea
In the TV interviews with these lorry drivers many of them seem to have small kitchen facilities in their lorries. Which kind of makes sense if they are always on the road all day.
Do they have tend to have WC facilities? I wouldn't have thought so.
Apparently they are crapping by their own wheels. Gross. FFS get them some portaloos, food and water. It’s 4000 men, who need somewhere to do their biz. It’s not like organising D-Day
And, as has been pointed out, this is a Covid Emergency waiting to happen, if the bug visits them. THEN we have a real problem
There's been absolutely no festivals this summer. Portaloo companies would love the business ! Is it beyond the wit of the Gov't to organise this, as well as pop up vans to get them all food ?
I saw one excellent suggestion on Twitter. Open a lobster shack. Many of these lorries are full of delicious Scottish seafood, slowly rotting.
Get it out, cook it up, serve it with butter and a bap to the drivers. That will cheer everyone up and the Scottish seafood companies will be paid by HMG. All sorted (apart from the loos)
I am going to have to try lobster when I move close to Peterhead. Never had it
TBH I have always found lobster faintly disappointing, It is pleasant, if cooked properly, but I am not sure why it has this luxurious image.
King Crab is vastly superior: a divine foodstuff. Basic langoustines are generally nicer. Oysters are a much better aphrodisiac. And so on.
King crab is OK. Giant mites I believe, and gone feral in the Norwegian fjords, so might spread to Scotland.
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
To be fair, most FTAs are negotiated over a period of years, not a few weeks.
To be fair though that's like researching a vaccine - it takes years because it isn't prioritised and there's a whole lot of nothing or sequential discussions, and back and forths, and trying to decide what you're going to do and seeking funding etc which isn't being prioritised going on at various stages.
Labour are calling for scientists recommendations to be adopted immediately? That would be a good idea if their remit was to consider all aspects of the restrictions they are proposing. Instead, their only remit is advising on what measured would reduce the infection rate, nothing more.
The problem is not just asset price inflation. The tax system has entrenched inequality and the rungs of the ladder are further apart than they used to be.
Most of the wealth stats are residential property, so you need to be careful. But an annual tax on residential property to replace other taxes is probably a good idea
Has someone hacked your account @Charles? That's the second time this evening I've agreed with you.
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
EU good. UK bad EU good. U.K. bad
Fish isn’t a matter of principle. They are greedy MoFos wanting. But more value because Macron is squeezed on domestic politics
That’s not principle. That’s value.
(On visas you have more of a point - how does it work with other countries. It sounds like an “innovation” to me)
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
Depends what your metric is for Worst Ever PM.
There are many candidates, depending on how you define it. Let’s just take recent PMs
Squandering talent, power and luck? Then it has to be Blair. He had it all, he was charming, telegenic, clever, and won a huge majority, and could have done almost anything, but then he did Iraq
Being a bit sad and pointless? Brown
Damaging the country and losing an unlosable election? TMay. She was definitely very bad.
But I think a better metric is: what you intend to do when you gain power, and what you then achieve. In that respect Cameron is arguably the worst in a century. He intended to get the Tories to stop obsessing about Europe, while cementing our place in a reformed EU. Instead, through laziness and basic ineptitude, he saw us quit the EU on his watch, while plunging the entire country into a frenzied and divisive argument about the EU, not just the Tories
By that crucial measure, he is the worst prime minister in living memory
I mean it is fine to pay attention to Sumption on say jurisprudence but not so much when it comes to epidemiological issues because of his epistemological problems.
It does seem unfortunate that he is both sound and persuasive in several fields, but then makes truly basic errors of fact and logic that far less competent laymen are able to avoid on this issue, on which he is a layman himself.
Da fing is, you can't jurisprude in a vacuum. A minority of cases he will have presented or adjudicated on will have been pure law, chancery kinda stuff, but most big cases which make it to the supreme court involve expert scientific evudence on one thing or another which the court has to understand and adjudicate on. So you are left wondering what other bloopers he has committed.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
If you analyse the Cameron project on its own terms, it failed more comprehensively and completely than comparable political figures. It's not as if he had some general success but there were unforeseen consequences that undermined his legacy. He was directly sowing the seeds of his own failure from the beginning.
Cameron's problem was that he developed his political philosophy and shaped his premiership in response to a consensus - fiscal dryness, social liberalism, woolly internationalism, the 'proper' way of doing things - that was rapidly running out of road. And so he kept driving straight on, barely perceiving that the track was collapsing under him. If the status quo had lasted a bit longer, or if he had been more responsive to how it was changing, he could still have been PM now, a towering figure in both the country and the party.
This joker was wanting Wenger out when we were finishing third in the league. I think he was anti-Emery, but felt he should show he can back a manager so is still backing Arteta.
Sorry, not sorry.
To be honest I think some of the Arsenal fandom could do with a good look at themselves.
For this vantage point AFTV seem happier when Arsenal are doing bad as it generates more views and thus more income.
I reckon most of AFTV's viewers are non-Arsenal fans.
I wouldn't be surprised.
There's a tiny minority of Liverpool fans who are FSGOUT.
Have been for eight years or so, not even winning the Champions League and Premier League can make those guys happy.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
If you analyse the Cameron project on its own terms, it failed more comprehensively and completely than comparable political figures. It's not as if he had some general success but there were unforeseen consequences that undermined his legacy. He was directly sowing the seeds of his own failure from the beginning.
Cameron's problem was that he developed his political philosophy and shaped his premiership in response to a consensus - fiscal dryness, social liberalism, woolly internationalism, the 'proper' way of doing things - that was rapidly running out of road. And so he kept driving straight on, barely perceiving that the track was collapsing under him. If the status quo had lasted a bit longer, or if he had been more responsive to how it was changing, he could still have been PM now, a towering figure in both the country and the party.
The road was collapsing under him because he and his chum next door were strangling the councils and all the other public services.
The various schemes have already been extended until the end of the financial year. And he's been busy on his twitter feed.
Nevertheless, he was definitely getting more attention even than a Chancellor would normally get for making announcements. I wouldn't be surprised if he was told to dial it back, as certain people did not like him getting the attention.
Certain people being Nut Nuts?
I think when you are looking for those likely to get paranoid and jealous about attention paid to government ministers and seeking to rein them in, one need not go further than the one at the mid point of the Cabinet table.
Incidentally, I've always loved how pictures of such meetings show they still use laminated name cards like a local council meeting, as though they cannot remember each others' names and job titles. I note in this old example the Chancellor is on the sinister side of the PM. And look how much Rishi must have moved up since - little queue jumper.
I'd support the last sentence but... what steps would you recommend to make that happen?
Get institutional investors into the residential rental market in a bigger way. Expand social housing building but with a model based on discounts to market rent for limited time tenancies rather than life tenancies. And outwith the control of local councils
Ok, thanks for the response.
On point 1. How? On point 2. Who is actually going to build the houses?
My alternative is: Give every local authority a target number of houses to build per year and allow them to borrow on the market to do meet the target.
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
Treating EU citizens equally is easy, with probably the exception of Ireland given the common travel area. I find it extremely hard to believe this will be a significant sticking point. Still, not lots of gaps, just a couple.
Put it another way. If the UK thinks these issues are all minor, it can give way on all points. Maybe it will, but so far it hasn't
The visas one is particularly strange, because everyone will be treated the same way in that scheme regardless of nationality.
The non-discrimination issue is, I believe, that the UK can set its own visa rules, acknowledging the EU will likely reciprocate its level of generosity or restriction. However it has no discretion to distinguish between nationals of different EU member states when it applies those rules. If it does it is in breach of the treaty and the EU can go to arbitration or apply sanctions on the UK. At least that's what is in CETA and doesn't appear to be in this treaty draft. There is no way countries like Romania will agree the treaty without this non-discrimination clause.
Lockdown Lockdown 2.0: Lockdown Harder Lockdown 3.0: Lockdown With a Vengeance
OR
Lockdown Lockdown 2: This Time It's Personal Lockdown 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
??
The latter, as all right thinking people say, Die Hard isn't a Christmas film, associating the Christmas lockdowns with the Die Hard franchise will lead to confusion and mocking of the government.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
Interesting thoughts, Richard.
My take is that Juncker was extremely inflexible, underestimated Cameron's difficulties, and only much later realised that in forcing him into a corner he was not only creating the conditions for Brexit but was putting the entire EU project at risk.
How does that sound to you?
The rest of your post I buy, except of course that I come from the Europhile camp.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there should be at least a 5 year gap between serving as an elected politician and being appointed to the Lords - it should not be given out as a reward or replacement to MEPs who campaigned for their not to be any more MEPs, nor as an inducement to Sir NoName Backbencer-OldCodger to retire, so some Spad can get his seat in the Commons.
That won't happen until next week now. Somehow I don't see Johnson trundling back out on Christmas Eve to tell everyone who hasn't already been made to scrap their Christmas Day plans to do so.
He might spare us any nasty press conferences on Boxing Day and make an announcement on the 27th that Lockdown 3.0 will commence the following day.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to m whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
Also a fair point, but what people are remembered for will not necessarily be fair in terms of achievement. That is, will it negate the perception of other achievements, or actually negate the achievements. It won't make a difference to perceptions, but will be important.
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
The voting public turned against the LDs because, rather than negotiate a proper coalition agreement, they capituated with in a few days to the Conservatives, and then publicly argued in favour of Conservative policies for the next 5 years.
Then he should submit a series of papers to the MHRA, setting out the evidence for abandoning the previously agreed regime for administering each of the vaccines, so that it may be properly considered.
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
Treating EU citizens equally is easy, with probably the exception of Ireland given the common travel area. I find it extremely hard to believe this will be a significant sticking point. Still, not lots of gaps, just a couple.
Put it another way. If the UK thinks these issues are all minor, it can give way on all points. Maybe it will, but so far it hasn't
The visas one is particularly strange, because everyone will be treated the same way in that scheme regardless of nationality.
The non-discrimination issue is, I believe, that the UK can set its own visa rules, acknowledging the EU will likely reciprocate its level of generosity or restriction. However it has no discretion to distinguish between nationals of different EU member states when it applies those rules. If it does it is in breach of the treaty and the EU can go to arbitration or apply sanctions on the UK. At least that's what is in CETA and doesn't appear to be in this treaty draft. There is no way countries like Romania will agree the treaty without this non-discrimination clause.
Sure, but the new visa scheme is not supposed to differentiate based on nationality.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to m whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
Also a fair point, but what people are remembered for will not necessarily be fair in terms of achievement. That is, will it negate the perception of other achievements, or actually negate the achievements. It won't make a difference to perceptions, but will be important.
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
The voting public turned against the LDs because, rather than negotiate a proper coalition agreement, they capituated with in a few days to the Conservatives, and then publicly argued in favour of Conservative policies for the next 5 years.
Lockdown Lockdown 2.0: Lockdown Harder Lockdown 3.0: Lockdown With a Vengeance
OR
Lockdown Lockdown 2: This Time It's Personal Lockdown 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
??
The latter, as all right thinking people say, Die Hard isn't a Christmas film, associating the Christmas lockdowns with the Die Hard franchise will lead to confusion and mocking of the government.
I'd just be more concerned with lockdowns 4.0 and 5.0 being tailor made for the libertarian lockdown skeptics/anti vaxxers (4.0 at least):
Lockdown 4.0: Live free or Lockdown Lockdown 5.0: A good day to Lockdown
Then he should submit a series of papers to the MHRA, setting out the evidence for abandoning the previously agreed regime for administering each of the vaccines, so that it may be properly considered.
Has his suggestion been referred to Prof. Peston, FRS, DipSHit?
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to m whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
Also a fair point, but what people are remembered for will not necessarily be fair in terms of achievement. That is, will it negate the perception of other achievements, or actually negate the achievements. It won't make a difference to perceptions, but will be important.
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
The voting public turned against the LDs because, rather than negotiate a proper coalition agreement, they capituated with in a few days to the Conservatives, and then publicly argued in favour of Conservative policies for the next 5 years.
That's part of it, but clearly not the whole of it, since they lost around 50% support immediately, well before any implications from the agreement in terms of it being worth it, could have been known. So that may well have made things worse, but the public also simply didn't believe them despite what they had said about being willing to work with either side, as they immediately jumped ship.
NHS leaders have raised concerns about the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine, with more than half of hospital trusts and two-thirds of GPs yet to receive supplies amid growing alarm over the new fast-spreading variant.
Dr Richard Vautrey, the chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, urged the government to speed up delivery of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in order to save lives. Experts also demanded greater transparency from ministers on how many doses are available.
Vautrey said: “We need millions of doses to be made available as soon as possible – urgently – because it’s the number one priority for GP practices, our patients and the nation, especially given the new mutant strain.
“GPs who haven’t got it yet are frustrated because they want to be getting on and vaccinating their patients as well. Their frustration is understandable. They want to protect their patients, especially their vulnerable patients, as quickly as possible.”
Hospital bosses in England are also dismayed that, a fortnight after Margaret Keenan from Coventry became the first person to have the jab on 8 December, more than half of the country’s 135 NHS acute hospital trusts have still not received their first supplies. So far 57 (42%) of them have had a delivery and been able to start vaccination, the Guardian understands.
Then he should submit a series of papers to the MHRA, setting out the evidence for abandoning the previously agreed regime for administering each of the vaccines, so that it may be properly considered.
Yet another argument for abolishing the Lords. Its just BoZos kiss arses nowadays.
I don't know that that is true when last time he appointed both Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond. This latest list seems pretty egregious with the toady MEPs and a party treasurer for instance, and the wider problem of appointments remains, but it's not been exclusively kiss arses, even if it is mostly kiss arses.
NHS leaders have raised concerns about the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine, with more than half of hospital trusts and two-thirds of GPs yet to receive supplies amid growing alarm over the new fast-spreading variant.
Dr Richard Vautrey, the chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, urged the government to speed up delivery of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in order to save lives. Experts also demanded greater transparency from ministers on how many doses are available.
Vautrey said: “We need millions of doses to be made available as soon as possible – urgently – because it’s the number one priority for GP practices, our patients and the nation, especially given the new mutant strain.
“GPs who haven’t got it yet are frustrated because they want to be getting on and vaccinating their patients as well. Their frustration is understandable. They want to protect their patients, especially their vulnerable patients, as quickly as possible.”
Hospital bosses in England are also dismayed that, a fortnight after Margaret Keenan from Coventry became the first person to have the jab on 8 December, more than half of the country’s 135 NHS acute hospital trusts have still not received their first supplies. So far 57 (42%) of them have had a delivery and been able to start vaccination, the Guardian understands.
As I said earlier, this is why the Government isn't making more of the success of the vaccine rollout. They actually appear to be making a decent fist of distributing the Pfizer jab, but there's not enough of it. When the regulator - we fervently hope - gives the green light to Oxford/AZN then it might have more success in getting deliveries to every hospital and surgery that needs them. Until then, the have-nots will inevitably moan loudly.
Very foolish of her if that is a breach of the regs, though at least she is some distance away.
It’s definitely a breach of the regs, in spirit if not in law. You are asked to always wear a mask in a public social setting, indoors, unless sitting down
The various 'Pandemic' board games have probably already sold out (I own 'Pandemic: Fall of Rome'.
I've only got a battleships board game.
It is a bit hit and miss.
I've still got my old Operation Sealion board game from student days. Rather topical now.
Shout out for Great Western Trail. A brilliant game.
Thanks for the tip I'll look out for that one.
The Ticket To Ride recommendation on here a couple of years ago proved very successful (back in the days when we could, y'know, meet up with friends and family).
Yes, the TTR series are great, and good for families at Xmas. GWT is more of a serious proposotion for people into complex board games.
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
To be fair, most FTAs are negotiated over a period of years, not a few weeks.
To be fair though that's like researching a vaccine - it takes years because it isn't prioritised and there's a whole lot of nothing or sequential discussions, and back and forths, and trying to decide what you're going to do and seeking funding etc which isn't being prioritised going on at various stages.
Up to a point, yes. There are periods of inactivity in both. With FTAs you need to get all the stakeholders on board, not just governments , but interest groups like fishermen, business people as well political pressure groups. That takes time.
This divergence has been occurring slowly but steadily over 50+ years.
Although admittedly in the UK the GFC accelerated it as the young bore the brunt of the hurt.
I think Gordon Brown should get a lot of the blame. In 1997 he made a point of saying he wouldn't let house prices get out of control, and then did nothing to prevent them getting out of control because he thought he'd abolished boom and bust. Then when Cameron and Osborne came in they repeated the same mistakes by subsidising the market instead of restructuring it.
Very foolish of her if that is a breach of the regs, though at least she is some distance away.
If that's a breach it must be about as minor as one can possibly be.
Wait to see what else emerges, but it has the look of something where people overdo the reaction, like when even the most minor infraction is treated by opponents as resignation worthy (and one reason they should be wary of doing so, in case it bites them in the arse).
I see the President of Chile breached rules and got fined.
Very foolish of her if that is a breach of the regs, though at least she is some distance away.
It’s definitely a breach of the regs, in spirit if not in law. You are asked to always wear a mask in a public social setting, indoors, unless sitting down
This means Sturgeon will be put into Scotland Lockdown Level 6 - not allowed to say anything for six months - will do her country (at least in her mind) and all of us a huge favour!
Tony Connelly's Twitter thread doesn't suggest an imminent deal to me. Lots of gaps on fundamental issues.
What the f*ck have they been doing every time they tell us progress was being made even as gaps remained? Even incremental progress should mean there are not that many gaps on fundamental issues remaining, so they really have spent most of the year play acting for the cameras.
I'm not sure what FF43 is basing his claim of "lots of gaps on fundamental issues" on. The tweet mentions fishing, and then what look like three rather minor areas.
Fishing and non-discrimination between treatment of EU member states for visas are fundamental issues of principle for the EU. This thread is from an EU perspective but it implies that the UK has issues over permanent commitments (ie need for "sunset clauses")
Treating EU citizens equally is easy, with probably the exception of Ireland given the common travel area. I find it extremely hard to believe this will be a significant sticking point. Still, not lots of gaps, just a couple.
Put it another way. If the UK thinks these issues are all minor, it can give way on all points. Maybe it will, but so far it hasn't
The visas one is particularly strange, because everyone will be treated the same way in that scheme regardless of nationality.
The non-discrimination issue is, I believe, that the UK can set its own visa rules, acknowledging the EU will likely reciprocate its level of generosity or restriction. However it has no discretion to distinguish between nationals of different EU member states when it applies those rules. If it does it is in breach of the treaty and the EU can go to arbitration or apply sanctions on the UK. At least that's what is in CETA and doesn't appear to be in this treaty draft. There is no way countries like Romania will agree the treaty without this non-discrimination clause.
Sure, but the new visa scheme is not supposed to differentiate based on nationality.
For whatever reason the UK is resisting this clause. My guess is it doesn't like being beholden to the EU for the execution of its border policy. Which I suggest is a fundamental point of principle to them. Hence the holdup.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to make an argument that he should never have permitted the question to be asked, that is one thing, but it really goes too far when every thing that happens as a result of voters doing the opposite of what he said is suggested as his direct responsibility. That's like taking literally the joke of holding Eric Joyce responsible for everything that has occurred since because it led to Corbyn or whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
Depends what your metric is for Worst Ever PM.
There are many candidates, depending on how you define it. Let’s just take recent PMs
Squandering talent, power and luck? Then it has to be Blair. He had it all, he was charming, telegenic, clever, and won a huge majority, and could have done almost anything, but then he did Iraq
Being a bit sad and pointless? Brown
Damaging the country and losing an unlosable election? TMay. She was definitely very bad.
But I think a better metric is: what you intend to do when you gain power, and what you then achieve. In that respect Cameron is arguably the worst in a century. He intended to get the Tories to stop obsessing about Europe, while cementing our place in a reformed EU. Instead, through laziness and basic ineptitude, he saw us quit the EU on his watch, while plunging the entire country into a frenzied and divisive argument about the EU, not just the Tories
By that crucial measure, he is the worst prime minister in living memory
Bozo just wanted to sit in the big chair, shake hands in front of cheering crowds, and be photographed opening stuff.
By that crucial measure, it’s not going so well. Although I guess he does get to sit in the big chair.
I don't think people really do stereotype the west country anymore. They just forget we exist outside the holiday homes in Cornwall. Most of us don't even have silly rural accents, which probably upsets the media.
I see the ridiculous gaslighting continues. The people who are responsible for Brexit are those who voted and/or campaigned for Cameron, Brexit, May and Johnson. No-one else. Brexit is yours, for better or worse. For God's sake, have the guts to own it.
It's pretty silly, indeed raving bonkers, to blame the one person who campaigned vigorously for Remain for Brexit. And also pretty silly to blame those who voted for Theresa May: Brexit had already been decided by then, and if she had had the majority she asked for and needed, she'd have been able to deliver it in the sensible way she was planning, without Labour and other opposition parties helping (and actively voting with) the ERG to torpedo it.
I'll grant you the other two categories.
Cameron's idea of campaigning for Remain was to spend years slagging off the EU to prove he was down with the Eurosceptics, and then bully people into voting for his deal by threatening them with the abyss if they didn't. He's one of the most disastrous Prime Ministers in history.
Poppycock. That's like blaming the solicitor who advises you against a bad purchase for the bad purchase you decide to make.
Cameron remain the best Prime Minister, apart from the very special case of Maggie, for at least a half century, in the sense that he ran the country and the government better than any other PM. It's completely absurd to blame him for decisions made by others - not least, voters.
If people want to m whatever.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that there are two problems though.
The first is that it was his failure to secure meaningful reform of the British relationship with the EU that led to the Leave vote.
The second is that he refused to make any preparation for the possibility of a Leave vote and then as soon as it happened he walked away as if it were nothing to do with him.
I actually like Cameron both as a person and generally as a PM. He did a couple of very important things, not least Gay Marriage. But it is simply not realistic to claim that he was not responsible at least in part for both the referendum result (though of course I was glad of that) and its aftermath.
That's fair, and I suspect historical analysis even when very clear eyed will not look kindly on it or him from that point of view. But let us be real here, a lot of the 'Worst PM EVAR' takes on the internet are pretty much purely to do with the fact that Brexit happened, not some assessment about his failings leading up to the event. It's emotional, not analytical.
The question is to what extent one big misjudgement with lasting implications negates any more prosaic achievements. For all I know Lord North had a swinging housing policy, but we all know what he is remembered for.
Also a fair point, but what people are remembered for will not necessarily be fair in terms of achievement. That is, will it negate the perception of other achievements, or actually negate the achievements. It won't make a difference to perceptions, but will be important.
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
The voting public turned against the LDs because, rather than negotiate a proper coalition agreement, they capituated with in a few days to the Conservatives, and then publicly argued in favour of Conservative policies for the next 5 years.
That's part of it, but clearly not the whole of it, since they lost around 50% support immediately, well before any implications from the agreement in terms of it being worth it, could have been known. So that may well have made things worse, but the public also simply didn't believe them despite what they had said about being willing to work with either side, as they immediately jumped ship.
It's really not that complicated.
The Lib Dems spent decades telling soft left voters "vote for us to stop the Tories" While simultaneously telling soft right voters "vote for us to stop Labour"
The second they got into a Coalition they were going to betray one tranche of people they'd appealled to in the past.
But then they made it worse by also saying to the other lot "we could do the same to you too".
They went from Jack of All Trades, to Master of None.
Comments
If this is the case, then keeping education shut will be essential to getting a grip on the spread during Lockdown 3.
https://twitter.com/MinorPlaces/status/1341337081793175552
https://twitter.com/KattyKay_/status/1341499590047129602
As one exhausted and frustrated by Boris's schtick, I'm perfectly content with Mr Boring, and I think he can win without being interesting if the situation is right - and after what will be 14 years of Tory led government, they really should be - but a little pizzazz wouldn't go amiss.
God knows whodunnit.
Very, very loose guesstimation, but I just looked at the death stats and we went from 8 to 360 in 15 days.
With a reproduction period of 5 days, that’d be an R of 3.55.
I’d bet that it’s massively variable, dependent on which days you choose, and dependent on where it’s scything through, but it’s indicative, at least.
I grabbed some from when it was declining, and went from 646 to 347 in 15 days.
Again, genuinely random grab, on a highly variable metric with loads of different stuff going in, but that indicates an R of 0.81 (same assumptions).
Really loose stuff, but gives a broad indication, and does point to that or better.
He might spare us any nasty press conferences on Boxing Day and make an announcement on the 27th that Lockdown 3.0 will commence the following day.
The Ticket To Ride recommendation on here a couple of years ago proved very successful (back in the days when we could, y'know, meet up with friends and family).
I do think, for instance, that Clegg and the LDs will get a fairer shake in history than the voting public ever gave them for the Coalition choice, even though the only thing people will remember about it is tuition fees.
I Know Him So Well, after all.
EU good. U.K. bad
Fish isn’t a matter of principle. They are greedy MoFos wanting. But more value because Macron is squeezed on domestic politics
That’s not principle. That’s value.
(On visas you have more of a point - how does it work with other countries. It sounds like an “innovation” to me)
There are many candidates, depending on how you define it. Let’s just take recent PMs
Squandering talent, power and luck? Then it has to be Blair. He had it all, he was charming, telegenic, clever, and won a huge majority, and could have done almost anything, but then he did Iraq
Being a bit sad and pointless? Brown
Damaging the country and losing an unlosable election? TMay. She was definitely very bad.
But I think a better metric is: what you intend to do when you gain power, and what you then achieve. In that respect Cameron is arguably the worst in a century. He intended to get the Tories to stop obsessing about Europe, while cementing our place in a reformed EU. Instead, through laziness and basic ineptitude, he saw us quit the EU on his watch, while plunging the entire country into a frenzied and divisive argument about the EU, not just the Tories
By that crucial measure, he is the worst prime minister in living memory
Lockdown
Lockdown 2.0: Lockdown Harder
Lockdown 3.0: Lockdown With a Vengeance
OR
Lockdown
Lockdown 2: This Time It's Personal
Lockdown 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
??
The Left as a middle class interest group. A bit like what's happening in the States.
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1341388187504140291?s=21
There's a tiny minority of Liverpool fans who are FSGOUT.
Have been for eight years or so, not even winning the Champions League and Premier League can make those guys happy.
Incidentally, I've always loved how pictures of such meetings show they still use laminated name cards like a local council meeting, as though they cannot remember each others' names and job titles. I note in this old example the Chancellor is on the sinister side of the PM. And look how much Rishi must have moved up since - little queue jumper.
On point 1. How?
On point 2. Who is actually going to build the houses?
My alternative is: Give every local authority a target number of houses to build per year and allow them to borrow on the market to do meet the target.
My take is that Juncker was extremely inflexible, underestimated Cameron's difficulties, and only much later realised that in forcing him into a corner he was not only creating the conditions for Brexit but was putting the entire EU project at risk.
How does that sound to you?
The rest of your post I buy, except of course that I come from the Europhile camp.
Lockdown 4.0: Live free or Lockdown
Lockdown 5.0: A good day to Lockdown
Delusional is being kind.
Although admittedly in the UK the GFC accelerated it as the young bore the brunt of the hurt.
Dr Richard Vautrey, the chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, urged the government to speed up delivery of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in order to save lives. Experts also demanded greater transparency from ministers on how many doses are available.
Vautrey said: “We need millions of doses to be made available as soon as possible – urgently – because it’s the number one priority for GP practices, our patients and the nation, especially given the new mutant strain.
“GPs who haven’t got it yet are frustrated because they want to be getting on and vaccinating their patients as well. Their frustration is understandable. They want to protect their patients, especially their vulnerable patients, as quickly as possible.”
Hospital bosses in England are also dismayed that, a fortnight after Margaret Keenan from Coventry became the first person to have the jab on 8 December, more than half of the country’s 135 NHS acute hospital trusts have still not received their first supplies. So far 57 (42%) of them have had a delivery and been able to start vaccination, the Guardian understands.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/22/nhs-leaders-raise-concerns-pace-covid-vaccine-rollout
I see the President of Chile breached rules and got fined.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-55378173
Widened?
Lockdown now.
I mean, perfectly fine for commentators who are giving their own views to make such comments, but for a BBC bloke? Nah.
By that crucial measure, it’s not going so well. Although I guess he does get to sit in the big chair.
Why delay? Should be in place now
I imagine tonight’s German TV news will NOT be dominated by Supercovid or Brexit lorries.
The Lib Dems spent decades telling soft left voters "vote for us to stop the Tories"
While simultaneously telling soft right voters "vote for us to stop Labour"
The second they got into a Coalition they were going to betray one tranche of people they'd appealled to in the past.
But then they made it worse by also saying to the other lot "we could do the same to you too".
They went from Jack of All Trades, to Master of None.
Oh ffs