Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
I rather read it that by autumn, everyone will be offered a Covid shot, rather like a more widely available flu shot. So next winter should not be a Covid worry.
Way before then, we will have vaccinated everyone in the vulnerable groups that needs one.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
From Alastair's initial paragraph I thought he was going to inveigh against dog walkers. They appear to be increasing exponentially. All too often I seem to be the only dog-free person in the park and therefore an object of deep suspicion. "Where's your little bag of poo?" their accusing eyes seem to say, "Where's your mangey tennis ball, and that stupid stick thing to launch it with? Where's your 20m leash for snaring passers-by? It's alright, he won't hurt you, he just wants to be friendly."
I think we're right to view you with deep suspicion if that's your attitude.
Oh I dunno. I'm a dog owner and I totally get it. There was a tongue-in-cheek article last year about viewing walkers who don't have a dog at their heel as, basically, rapists in the wings.
Someone 'Off-topic'd' this so I'm going to bump it up just to annoy whoever it was. As Alastair began his piece on the subject of dog walking it's hardly off-topic.
It has been mentioned that if you're out running without a dog, that's fine. But tongue-in-cheek or not, prior to the pandemic if you were single and out walking without a dog some people did eye you with suspicion. Holding a dog lead, or a poo bag, or better still an actual dog close by and suddenly you're a person fit for an eyeball to eyeball conversation.
You are also a person who's dog may be about to bite someone.
"He's just being friendly" is the standard pre-bite line.
2 - Probably agree with @IanB2 - the last lot of dog legislation was a dog's breakfast. There was lots of shouting from the RSPCA about "puppy farms", but various parts also killed the economics of small-scale dog breeding. I know of plenty of people doing 1-3 litters a year from home who have just stopped.
And the pups are now being bred on puppy-farms overseas...
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
I think it's time for you to write a header. I did several during Brexit and tried to keep them under 600 words which you could if brevity is your thing.
I enjoy the range. Mike is best for getting a discussion going. Sharp and to the point and never too long however short you are for time.
Alastair is the only lengthy writer who I always read because he makes me laugh. Though if you have time they all produce the odd gem.
That might be one of the idaho/nevada militias classed as domestic terrorists listed in the article I posted at the bottom of this year. They've been protecting individuals and corporations from federal environmental regulations on an ultra-libertarian agenda for years, and have been involved in lots of stand-offs.
Alternately, and quite plausibly, it could be a newly organised group of white nationalists, as Kovler who predicted the events I think said was the other main, most organised strain of the groups there.
There must be a story to be told about how the Capital was cleared, that afternoon, with people like that inside.
All the gear and no idea....bit like me doing Crossfit !!!
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
On topic: "Donald Trump has whipped up his supporters into a frenzy with baseless claims that the election was in some way stolen from him."
Does Trump actually think: 1) that the election was rigged and fraudulent and therefore stolen from him or 2) he would have won if it wasn`t for Covid and this isn't fair and so it was stolen from him.
I`m not quite sure which one (or both?) he truly believes.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
All told, he would have won the election had he not scared off his voters from using absentee/postal ballots, a massive mistake in normal circumstances, but even more pronounced when there's a pandemic on.
Meanwhile his opponents increased their use of absentee/postal votes.
Trump's mistake is on a par if the Tories banned postal voting.
I don't think that's clear. He got very strong turnout, including quite a lot of people who hadn't turned out in 2016. Arguably in a high-enthusiasm election there's a lot to be said for relying on same-day voting, because everybody can see their friends voting which creates a peer pressure effect.
That said, if he'd also not bothered with the SCOTUS nominee who turned out to be useless to him and instead passed another stimulus and sent everybody another cheque with his signature on it, it's easy to see how he could have won.
On topic: "Donald Trump has whipped up his supporters into a frenzy with baseless claims that the election was in some way stolen from him."
Does Trump actually think: 1) that the election was rigged and fraudulent and therefore stolen from him or 2) he would have won if it wasn`t for Covid and this isn't fair and so it was stolen from him.
I`m not quite sure which one (or both?) he truly believes.
I think he started on 2 then moved to 1. He is like a child in that he believes anything he reads and since the election is reading all the conspiracies. His petulant, whiny call to the Georgia Secretary of State I think showed he really believes there is widespread fraud. He thinks its proven and cannot understand why people are mean to him.
With the USA's 2nd amendment, Flynn's ( Think what you like of him but he was a military man) pardon and all the 1776 chatter about I don't think we've seen the end of this. Many in the police are clearly Trump supporters, and as David L pointed out it's quite another thing to have the army initiate independent orders.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
The latest poll from Opinium this weekend does not suggest that and suggests Starmer made the right call.
Labour having voted for the Deal are on 40%, up 8% on their GE19 voteshare, the LDs having voted against the Deal are on just 6%, down 5% on their GE19 voteshare.
Your main problem (and there are many) is that you think a single opinion poll now is the long term outlook. The call - right or wrong - won't be something that manifests itself now. It is a future impact of the call. An opinion poll now is irrelevant. As you know. Yet you post it anyway.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
I am not disagreeing. I just think the majority of Americans are not persuaded that their republic was under threat at any point which is why Trump is still at liberty, let alone in office. The republic is not a couple of buildings, it is a system of laws, laws that have in the main stood up pretty well to Trump as the complete failure of his legal attempts and the commendable responses of republican officials in places like Georgia and in the electoral college representatives of various states and in Mike Pence, all of whom Trump tried to bully without success, showed.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
They need to get onto that pretty quickly. 'Rejoiner' sounds too much like a branch of plumbing. Something with a little more je ne sais quoi is required.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
No.
We all need to move on from Brexit. I'm done with it. It's over.
Listening to Starmer on Marr he rejects reintroducing free movement of Labour which of course would see the UK rejoining the single market and customs union, but he said he would want to improve on this 'thin' deal.
Marr pointed out that he had told the Daily Mirror he would bring back free movement of Labour and that his many supporters will be angered by his answer. He reiterated he would not bring free movement of Labour and it must follow that those who support closer ties or rejoining can only have one home and it is not Labour
Step forward the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland
Starmer is messaging the red-wallers and risks pissing off the left of his party. That is his calculation.
Why are so many on the left such fans of free movement of labour?
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
I am not disagreeing. I just think the majority of Americans are not persuaded that their republic was under threat at any point which is why Trump is still at liberty, let alone in office. The republic is not a couple of buildings, it is a system of laws, laws that have in the main stood up pretty well to Trump as the complete failure of his legal attempts and the commendable responses of republican officials in places like Georgia and in the electoral college representatives of various states and in Mike Pence, all of whom Trump tried to bully without success, showed.
The institutions stood up well in the election, but they seem to have been swaying very dangerously afterwards. If investigations really do find that Trump's late Pentagon picks, as well as the decision to reduce the normal National Guard equipment just a couple of days before, can be concretely linked to the way events unfolded, that swaying might be found to have been almost catastrophic.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
The latest poll from Opinium this weekend does not suggest that and suggests Starmer made the right call.
Labour having voted for the Deal are on 40%, up 8% on their GE19 voteshare, the LDs having voted against the Deal are on just 6%, down 5% on their GE19 voteshare.
Your main problem (and there are many) is that you think a single opinion poll now is the long term outlook. The call - right or wrong - won't be something that manifests itself now. It is a future impact of the call. An opinion poll now is irrelevant. As you know. Yet you post it anyway.
It is in line with every poll we have had since the Deal was passed through the Commons, Labour are up on GE19 still having backed the Deal, the LDs are significantly down on their GE19 voteshare having voted against the Deal.
Had we gone to No Deal then Starmer would have been right to oppose that but he made the right call to back the EU trade deal given the crushing defeat voters gave Corbyn in 2019, especially in the Red Wall, after he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
I happen to think today's is not as impactful as yesterdays but I think your trolling efforts are pretty lame. Bragging about your own credentials rather than letting your point stand for itself is a classic trolling indicator, since its attempting to make it about you not genuinely critique the piece, which could be done without it.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
The BBC report Hancock said 2 million last week, but I can't believe that is correct. The text on the website says,
"Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December."
I think he either misspoke or something misunderstood his 2 million statement, then added in the commentary that is more than whole of December. AFAIK, AZN haven't even provided enough vaccines to do that many people.
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
I think it's time for you to write a header. I did several during Brexit and tried to keep them under 600 words which you could if brevity is your thing.
I enjoy the range. Mike is best for getting a discussion going. Sharp and to the point and never too long however short you are for time.
Alastair is the only lengthy writer who I always read because he makes me laugh. Though if you have time they all produce the odd gem.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
The BBC report Hancock said 2 million last week, but I can't believe that is correct. The text on the website says,
Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
Off topic or not, this is one of the little nuggets I love about PB. Someone else does the research for stories one would otherwise have missed. A great story it is too.
Mr Meeks' header, as is often the case, hits the target from an unusual angle. The Napoleon commentary in particular I found alarming. With thoughts of a resurgent Trump winning in 2024, declaring himself Emperor, what if he added an hereditary element that passes it on to Don Jnr. ? Now there's a thought. To
Lock him up! (Trump, not Mr Meeks!)
It's the reason I like Twitter (and don't do Facebook). Twitter will often provide me with a fascinating item like the one above - as some else sends an interesting story into your timeline.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
The latest poll from Opinium this weekend does not suggest that and suggests Starmer made the right call.
Labour having voted for the Deal are on 40%, up 8% on their GE19 voteshare, the LDs having voted against the Deal are on just 6%, down 5% on their GE19 voteshare.
Your main problem (and there are many) is that you think a single opinion poll now is the long term outlook. The call - right or wrong - won't be something that manifests itself now. It is a future impact of the call. An opinion poll now is irrelevant. As you know. Yet you post it anyway.
I think the demise of Trump will change things fundamentally. The EU will assume even greater importance in the world and the UK will be diminished. Johnson's passing resemblance to an unbalanced populist kept him afloat for a while but now that's gone we haven't got much to hold the world's attention
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
Except there didn't prove to be any armour-clad fascists behind the clowns. All that there was behind the clowns was more clowns right up to the clown in chief.
Dozens, probably hundreds of those clowns are going to go to jail and rightly so. I am not excusing what they did.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
No.
We all need to move on from Brexit. I'm done with it. It's over.
Listening to Starmer on Marr he rejects reintroducing free movement of Labour which of course would see the UK rejoining the single market and customs union, but he said he would want to improve on this 'thin' deal.
Marr pointed out that he had told the Daily Mirror he would bring back free movement of Labour and that his many supporters will be angered by his answer. He reiterated he would not bring free movement of Labour and it must follow that those who support closer ties or rejoining can only have one home and it is not Labour
Step forward the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland
Starmer is messaging the red-wallers and risks pissing off the left of his party. That is his calculation.
Why are so many on the left such fans of free movement of labour?
Starmer can afford to lose some on the left to the LDs and Greens in London, Manchester and Liverpool and Bristol and Oxford etc, most seats there are Labour safe seats anyway.
If it means some Redwall voters in Tory marginal seats return to Labour from the Tories he will have made the right call
This comment seems rather stupid. ... But Angela Raffle, a consultant in public health at the University of Bristol Medical School, said increasing lateral flow testing was "very worrying" and warned the benefits of finding symptomless cases "will be outweighed by the many more infectious cases that are missed by these tests"...
We know that lateral flow tests don’t pick up all infections - but depending on the test find anything from 50% to 95%, and even at the lower level will detect the large majority of those most infected. And if they aren’t used, then none of those infected will be found. Provided that they are used in the knowledge that they are not an all clear (and neither is a PCR test beyond the time at which it was taken), and you still have to take the usual precautions if testing negative, then they will significantly reduce workplace infections.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
The BBC report Hancock said 2 million last week, but I can't believe that is correct. The text on the website says,
"Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December."
I think he either misspoke or something misunderstood his 2 million statement, then added in the commentary that is more than whole of December. AFAIK, AZN haven't even provided enough vaccines to do that many people.
I'll wait to see what the official figures say, I suspect that may be a misunderstanding.
But it isn't just AZN that are an issue here. Don't forget many Pfizer doses were set aside for the second dose but could now be used. Plus further Pfizer deliveries. On top of the AZN delivery.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
With the USA's 2nd amendment, Flynn's ( Think what you like of him but he was a military man) pardon and all the 1776 chatter about I don't think we've seen the end of this. Many in the police are clearly Trump supporters, and as David L pointed out it's quite another thing to have the army initiate independent orders.
The second amendment is a red herring. You cannot usefully start a war with nothing but a handful of untrained and unsupported infantrymen, and the gun owners know this. Anyway, a large part of being a gun nut is being a gun safety nut. The psychological gap between liking shooting automatic weapons at targets and posing with them on instagram, and actually pointing one at someone and pulling the trigger, when he and his mates are in a position to shoot back, is immense (see various studies about the reluctance of a huge number of actual soldiers in actual legitimate wars to do so).
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
On topic: "Donald Trump has whipped up his supporters into a frenzy with baseless claims that the election was in some way stolen from him."
Does Trump actually think: 1) that the election was rigged and fraudulent and therefore stolen from him or 2) he would have won if it wasn`t for Covid and this isn't fair and so it was stolen from him.
I`m not quite sure which one (or both?) he truly believes.
I think it's
3) he didn't get the votes he expected to get and has heard from people that they weren't able to vote. And that sole reason why this is the case is because Trump discouraged them from voting early.
In reality what he should have done was just to tell people to vote early - if he had done that he would have won.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
The BBC report Hancock said 2 million last week, but I can't believe that is correct. The text on the website says,
"Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December."
I think he either misspoke or something misunderstood his 2 million statement, then added in the commentary that is more than whole of December. AFAIK, AZN haven't even provided enough vaccines to do that many people.
If there is one number Hancock should know - over and above his own phone number or his wife's birthday - it is just how many people have now been vaccinated. It is his raison d'etre.
I don't want to believe he could get that number seriously wrong.
So, come on, own up, which pb-ers are responsible for this?
"This has to be the worst book I have read in years. So poorly written that I thought it must have been written as an exercise on a creative writing course. You can just imagine the author ticking off the set pieces, unreliable narrator? Check. Change of narrator? Check. Relationship problem? Check. Do I want to write a thriller, a ghost story a romance or a travelog? I know! I'll do them all! With regard to the references to Skye, I can only assume they took a handful of names, threw them into the air then stuck them onto the first place they thought of. This book is the literary equivalent to day time TV. Just awful."
Or this
"In fact, no star ... what was so tiresome was the inclusion of three, sometimes four adjectives before every noun and as many adverbs with every verb. Also the characters were shallow and unconvincing. A waste of time."
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
I think it's the total too, and it is a good jump in itself. If we have the capacity to use all the available vaccine then we should be able to proceed at a very good pace even if we don't hit the initial target. It's much better to be in a position where the supply is the issue rather than dispensing it causing a bottleneck, as the supply will keep widening as new vaccines become available.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Yes....i can believe his claim capacity is now 200k / day though. I think come April, with 3-4 different vaccines being supplied, we will be able to do multiple millions in a week.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
I think it's far too early to say that.
So you mean whether or not it was a coup or whether or not what happened represented criminality?
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
I am not disagreeing. I just think the majority of Americans are not persuaded that their republic was under threat at any point which is why Trump is still at liberty, let alone in office. The republic is not a couple of buildings, it is a system of laws, laws that have in the main stood up pretty well to Trump as the complete failure of his legal attempts and the commendable responses of republican officials in places like Georgia and in the electoral college representatives of various states and in Mike Pence, all of whom Trump tried to bully without success, showed.
The institutions stood up well in the election, but they seem to have been swaying very dangerously afterwards. If investigations really do find that Trump's late Pentagon picks, as well as the decision to reduce the normal National Guard equipment just a couple of days before, can be concretely linked to the way events unfolded, that swaying might be found to have been almost catastrophic.
What the Americans need to face is that for all their vaunted checks and balances the system is dependent upon some degree of integrity at the top. If the person at the top seeks to abuse his authority by, for example, not allowing the National Guard to be deployed, what then? There was a lot of talk about the 25th Amendment but as you point out placemen make that inoperable.
In my view a lot of the problem comes from the ridiculous gap between November 3rd and 20th January (it used to be even longer) during which a defeated President retains full executive power. I don't think any other country does this, certainly not for so long. I think they need to revisit it.
Confession: I just had to look up the "underpants gnomes" thing because I had NO idea what people were talking about. How is it I've missed out on this essential contribution to the cultural canon?
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Back of the envelope maths, pop 70m, vaccinate 50m, currently two jabs needed, but at least one potential vaccine is single jab, so 1.8 jabs gives 90m jabs or 45 weeks at that rate, or around October/November. We need to go much faster than 2m per week, and will do.
If we have done 2m in a week, I suspect we may have used up most of the Pfizer that is available over the next few weeks, so in the immediate term we might go down rather than up.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
It was an attempted coup & your last sentence is a nonsense
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
The BBC report Hancock said 2 million last week, but I can't believe that is correct. The text on the website says,
"Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December."
I think he either misspoke or something misunderstood his 2 million statement, then added in the commentary that is more than whole of December. AFAIK, AZN haven't even provided enough vaccines to do that many people.
If there is one number Hancock should know - over and above his own phone number or his wife's birthday - it is just how many people have now been vaccinated. It is his raison d'etre.
I don't want to believe he could get that number seriously wrong.
But....
I didn't hear his interview, so I don't know his exact wording and how that may or may not have been misinterpreted by the BBC live blogger. I did hear him say 200k/day is now possible on Sky News though, and that doesn't seem impossible.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
200k a day, a robust claim by Hancock, means 1.4m a week. It’s not a stretch to see 2m a week very soon, as huge vax centres open next week. That’s impressive.
Anecdotally, I am now hearing of many friends, acquaintances being vaxed. Eg the 22 year old daughter of a close friend. She works in a care home. She got the shank last Monday
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But theYou have to call it a coup attempt because to the extent it w message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
You have to call it a coup because to the extent one can discern a purpose it was to overturn the result of a legitimate election by non-democratic means. The fact that it all ended up looking a bit silly doesn't alter that.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
The latest poll from Opinium this weekend does not suggest that and suggests Starmer made the right call.
Labour having voted for the Deal are on 40%, up 8% on their GE19 voteshare, the LDs having voted against the Deal are on just 6%, down 5% on their GE19 voteshare.
Your main problem (and there are many) is that you think a single opinion poll now is the long term outlook. The call - right or wrong - won't be something that manifests itself now. It is a future impact of the call. An opinion poll now is irrelevant. As you know. Yet you post it anyway.
It is in line with every poll we have had since the Deal was passed through the Commons, Labour are up on GE19 still having backed the Deal, the LDs are significantly down on their GE19 voteshare having voted against the Deal.
Had we gone to No Deal then Starmer would have been right to oppose that but he made the right call to back the EU trade deal given the crushing defeat voters gave Corbyn in 2019, especially in the Red Wall, after he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement
Yep - neither YouGov not Opinium show any discernible Tory bounce from either the Brexit deal or the roll-out of the vaccine. What they indicate instead is what we already know: we live in a very divided country. That said, how all this plays out in a general election remains to be seen. If the majority of the country decides that it wants the Tories out no matter, anti-Tory voters will look much more carefully at their specific constituencies to work out how to make their vote as effective as possible.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I started to feel quite angry reading your post, so I read it again and felt a bit calmer because you do save yourself in the last paragraph and much of what you say is right. But there's one bit I can't leave unaddressed:
"The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously."
Yes, someone wearing a fur hood and horns does look ridiculous, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those revolting against democracy seriously. A clown with a loaded gun is still a person with a loaded gun. This has actually been a recurring theme of the past few years. Breathless media descriptions of the "alt right" focusing on their sharp suits. People taking Trump as a joke because he's orange and has ridiculous hair. A lesson for a a wannabe dictator is to adopt some style that is slightly comical, because you can get attention from it, which helps you get your message across.
But the message is the important thing. And, more tellingly, the armour-clad fascists behind the clown, they're the ones who will do the damage.
It's not good enough to focus only on the grinning idiot carrying a lectern when the place was crawling with people who literally wanted to kill senators and the vice-president. We cannot allow fascism to walk behind a fluffy mascot.
I agree. David does make clear the punishment that is necessary, but in think some are getting too caught up with use of the word coup - which is a very wide ranging word- and contrasting a mental image with the shambolic mon nature of it. I do not think the sillier element disguises the seriousness or the label that should therefore be applied.
Yes - I don`t think what happened comes close to being a coup. Calling it that may even legitimise the criminality of it in some way.
It was an attempted coup & your last sentence is a nonsense
It gives people a cause instead of just saying it for what it is - crime. (Rather like calling murderers terrorists rather than what they are: mass murderers.)
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
My speculation - and it's a guess right now - is that when the full story is told, the guy who shot that female protestor may come to be seen as having made the critical intervention.
There's a video from another angle (to the one I saw on the night) currently on the CNN site. The double doors to the House (or the corridor to the House) are barricaded and covered by officers inside with pistols drawn. The crowd of protestors outside, having failed to push open the doors, smash in the pane of glass of the right hand door. It happens quickly, but if you stop the video you can just see the woman being lifted up towards the hole where the glass had been, when she is shot (in the neck according to reports) and falls backwards out of view.
We know the woman was quickly removed from the building and can assume that the protestors in the vicinity were preoccupied with getting her evacuated immediately after. We also know that, although the chamber was later entered, by that time the politicians had evacuated as none of them were captured.
Word of that shooting would have spread like wildfire through the mob, and brought home the fact that this was now 'real'. I am guessing that many of the protestors may have started leaving the building at that point. And that among the more determined, none of them wanted to volunteer to be the next to get shot.
If this purely speculative account of what might have happened is anywhere close, that shooting turned the tide.
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
Amazon link? Showing would really outweigh telling here, not to mention expand your potential readership.
I think Mysticrose prefers to retain anonymity, which is entirely reasonable. Claiming credentials as a basis for critiques, which on their own merits are not entirely convincing, is trying to have it both ways.
(And I wouldn’t make a thing if it if Mysticrose didn’t repeat the critique quite so often.)
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
No.
We all need to move on from Brexit. I'm done with it. It's over.
Listening to Starmer on Marr he rejects reintroducing free movement of Labour which of course would see the UK rejoining the single market and customs union, but he said he would want to improve on this 'thin' deal.
Marr pointed out that he had told the Daily Mirror he would bring back free movement of Labour and that his many supporters will be angered by his answer. He reiterated he would not bring free movement of Labour and it must follow that those who support closer ties or rejoining can only have one home and it is not Labour
Step forward the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland
You need to move on , there is a deal. We know you are anti Labour in every regard , I think we all get it by now. Step forward with what ?
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
See my comment earlier - if I was an AWS customer I would be paranoid given the timeframe AWS are insisting on.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Back of the envelope maths, pop 70m, vaccinate 50m, currently two jabs needed, but at least one potential vaccine is single jab, so 1.8 jabs gives 90m jabs or 45 weeks at that rate, or around October/November. We need to go much faster than 2m per week, and will do.
If we have done 2m in a week, I suspect we may have used up most of the Pfizer that is available over the next few weeks, so in the immediate term we might go down rather than up.
Misreporting seems most likely.
Uhhh, I just had a brain fart. I read and wrote 2M per week, but I was calculating 2M a day. Of course you are right, and we're talking dozens of weeks, not dozens of days. and yes, 2M per week sounds very achievable. I'll go drink a vat of coffee now to give my brain a shake.
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
If they switch to Google Cloud or Azure they will face the same problem. To go to a fully decentralised service would require them to rebuild their tech to a much greater extent, which I doubt is a week job.
All this action will have been carefully coordinated by the big tech firms, so i expect to hear Google and Microsoft come out shortly and say they are banned from using their web hosting services
So banned from the apps stores and banned from all the services that allow scalablility on the internet.
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
Amazon link? Showing would really outweigh telling here, not to mention expand your potential readership.
I think Mysticrose prefers to retain anonymity, which is entirely reasonable. Claiming credentials as a basis for critiques, which on their own merits are not entirely convincing, is trying to have it both ways.
(And I wouldn’t make a thing if it if Mysticrose didn’t repeat the critique quite so often.)
We've never seen Mysticrose and a SeanT poster in the same room at the same time. It's always one or the other.
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
Amazon link? Showing would really outweigh telling here, not to mention expand your potential readership.
I think Mysticrose prefers to retain anonymity, which is entirely reasonable. Claiming credentials as a basis for critiques, which on their own merits are not entirely convincing, is trying to have it both ways.
(And I wouldn’t make a thing if it if Mysticrose didn’t repeat the critique quite so often.)
Of course it is reasonable, but as you say: having it both ways. A real Shit or get off the pot situation.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
200k a day, a robust claim by Hancock, means 1.4m a week. It’s not a stretch to see 2m a week very soon, as huge vax centres open next week. That’s impressive.
Anecdotally, I am now hearing of many friends, acquaintances being vaxed. Eg the 22 year old daughter of a close friend. She works in a care home. She got the shank last Monday
Hancock specifically said more vaccinated last week than in all December so it must be over a million.
He also looked pretty happy so things are likely going well.
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
See my comment earlier - if I was an AWS customer I would be paranoid given the timeframe AWS are insisting on.
How many AWS customers promote and facilitate terrorism?
Anyone know whether Farage has unequivocally condemned the Capitol outrage yet? It seems to be becoming more apparent by the day that describing Trump as a fascist is not hyperbole. His friend, supporter and fellow admirer of Putin deserved the epithet just as much.
Only 98...if that's the line in the sand, twitter is screwed.
People are going to have to realise businesses dont need to be fair or consistent. If they dont want to be associated with treasonous scum that is within their right. It is not much different from the pub landlord can bar who they like.
Well that’s not entirely accurate. There are laws which require at least a degree of fairness and consistency from businesses, though in this case, possibly not. And the comparison of multinational quasi monopoly businesses with a local pub isn’t a very useful way of looking at what’s a real problem.
I wouldn’t argue with Twitter’s actions, but I’m rather more troubled. about infrastructure businesses like AWS setting themselves up as censors.
Unsurprisingly a two line post was not intended as full legal overview of the rights of multi national businesses. My post is far closer to the reality of the freedom of businesses to choose or ban their customers than the countless posts demanding they be fair and unbiased. If people want to follow a violent revolutionary cause expect to be forced out of the mainstream, just as Jihad is for example.
I think classifying Trump as a scumbag is quite sufficient and it is then possible to move on. As Alastair says angsting over what particular kind of scumbag he is doesn't seem enormously productive (unless you are using it as the basis of your thesis in political science, which no doubt many will do).
My strong impression is that despite the desperation of several more liberal media outlets to find ever more extreme ways of shouting about how shocking last Wednesday's coup was the response in America seems largely meh.
Why? I think that the completely disorganised and incompetent nature of the Capitol invasion didn't look anything like a conventional coup. It was not a complete joke, some people died including a police officer doing his duty but even there people who died of medical emergencies were counted amongst the dead to try and dramatise it. The studios competed into the night, the participants were "terrorists", "rioters" (quick, think of another emotive word) but they looked like bozos wearing ridiculous costumes and acting like arseholes. It was hard to take such idiots seriously.
This by no means indicates that those that triggered this shambles should not bear the consequences. Trump should be impeached and banned from public office. He should go to jail (but probably won't). The Republic is less secure than it was on Tuesday. The envelope of the possible has been extended, the Rubicon has been crossed. It is no longer as inconceivable that a leader will try to use a mob to effect political change as it was on Tuesday. This is a very bad thing, no question. But Trump simply remains a scumbag, he is not genuinely worthy of our attention no matter how much he craves it.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
I am not disagreeing. I just think the majority of Americans are not persuaded that their republic was under threat at any point which is why Trump is still at liberty, let alone in office. The republic is not a couple of buildings, it is a system of laws, laws that have in the main stood up pretty well to Trump as the complete failure of his legal attempts and the commendable responses of republican officials in places like Georgia and in the electoral college representatives of various states and in Mike Pence, all of whom Trump tried to bully without success, showed.
The institutions stood up well in the election, but they seem to have been swaying very dangerously afterwards. If investigations really do find that Trump's late Pentagon picks, as well as the decision to reduce the normal National Guard equipment just a couple of days before, can be concretely linked to the way events unfolded, that swaying might be found to have been almost catastrophic.
What the Americans need to face is that for all their vaunted checks and balances the system is dependent upon some degree of integrity at the top. If the person at the top seeks to abuse his authority by, for example, not allowing the National Guard to be deployed, what then? There was a lot of talk about the 25th Amendment but as you point out placemen make that inoperable.
In my view a lot of the problem comes from the ridiculous gap between November 3rd and 20th January (it used to be even longer) during which a defeated President retains full executive power. I don't think any other country does this, certainly not for so long. I think they need to revisit it.
That's certainly one of the things that needs looking at.
Not much has been made of the fact that Biden won the popular vote by over 7million. As McConnell said, it wasn't really very close. If it had been closer, say about 4million, I think the insurrection might have been much stronger and more dangerous. Then again, it's perfectly possible that the Electoral College would have converted a defeat on that scale into a win for Trump.
From Alastair's initial paragraph I thought he was going to inveigh against dog walkers. They appear to be increasing exponentially. All too often I seem to be the only dog-free person in the park and therefore an object of deep suspicion. "Where's your little bag of poo?" their accusing eyes seem to say, "Where's your mangey tennis ball, and that stupid stick thing to launch it with? Where's your 20m leash for snaring passers-by? It's alright, he won't hurt you, he just wants to be friendly."
I think we're right to view you with deep suspicion if that's your attitude.
Oh I dunno. I'm a dog owner and I totally get it. There was a tongue-in-cheek article last year about viewing walkers who don't have a dog at their heel as, basically, rapists in the wings.
Someone 'Off-topic'd' this so I'm going to bump it up just to annoy whoever it was. As Alastair began his piece on the subject of dog walking it's hardly off-topic.
It has been mentioned that if you're out running without a dog, that's fine. But tongue-in-cheek or not, prior to the pandemic if you were single and out walking without a dog some people did eye you with suspicion. Holding a dog lead, or a poo bag, or better still an actual dog close by and suddenly you're a person fit for an eyeball to eyeball conversation.
You are also a person who's dog may be about to bite someone.
"He's just being friendly" is the standard pre-bite line.
2 - Probably agree with @IanB2 - the last lot of dog legislation was a dog's breakfast. There was lots of shouting from the RSPCA about "puppy farms", but various parts also killed the economics of small-scale dog breeding. I know of plenty of people doing 1-3 litters a year from home who have just stopped.
And the pups are now being bred on puppy-farms overseas...
I have had several extremely nasty encounters with dogs. One slavering Rottweiler in Pelenque in Mexico tried to bite my face off, he hurled himself at me then his chain tightened just in time - he was an inch from my eyes. Similar experience in Greece. And a couple of nearly-as-bad encounters on walks in the British countryside, with yes, laughing owners saying ‘oh he’s really friendly really’ when their Great Dane is drooling, snarling, boggle eyed and clearly trying to knock me down to maul me
Feck that
Ever since, on long walks, I carry an Ontario Rat foldable knife. A mean beast of a blade that could gut a Doberman in a few seconds. I don’t care if it is illegal. If people are allowed to walk around with dangerous weapons like aggressive, big, badly trained dogs, I will respond with protection.
The knives are also great for cutting common flowers or leaves, slicing toms in picnics, hewing out fossils, and edgeplay if you’re, uh, dogging
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
I rather read it that by autumn, everyone will be offered a Covid shot, rather like a more widely available flu shot. So next winter should not be a Covid worry.
Way before then, we will have vaccinated everyone in the vulnerable groups that needs one.
Agreed. The next big battle, though, will be risk segmentation of the low-risk, non-vaccinated cohort.
You are absolutely right in your implication that once the vulnerable are vaccinated, lockdown should end. But, as Matthew Parris pointed out yesterday, that will require public pressure as Whitty and his acolytes will push for continued for restrictions.
Dealing with many of those involved on Wednesday's rioting should be quite straightforward since many of them were happy to film themselves in the act. But how to deal with Trump who ultimately is the person who ought to bear responsibility?
Personally I would want to throw the book at him but already there are many saying that prosecuting Trump would only divide people further etc. The US could be facing a major crisis.
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
See my comment earlier - if I was an AWS customer I would be paranoid given the timeframe AWS are insisting on.
How many AWS customers promote and facilitate terrorism?
It's communication software on which they are complaining about 98 messages from probably millions..
I have zero problems with the argument that AWS can decide they don't want someone as a customer - I just believe they should provide enough time for you to get off their network and less than 24 hours notice on a Sunday isn't anywhere near enough time.
So, come on, own up, which pb-ers are responsible for this?
"This has to be the worst book I have read in years. So poorly written that I thought it must have been written as an exercise on a creative writing course. You can just imagine the author ticking off the set pieces, unreliable narrator? Check. Change of narrator? Check. Relationship problem? Check. Do I want to write a thriller, a ghost story a romance or a travelog? I know! I'll do them all! With regard to the references to Skye, I can only assume they took a handful of names, threw them into the air then stuck them onto the first place they thought of. This book is the literary equivalent to day time TV. Just awful."
Or this
"In fact, no star ... what was so tiresome was the inclusion of three, sometimes four adjectives before every noun and as many adverbs with every verb. Also the characters were shallow and unconvincing. A waste of time."
I enjoyed The Ice Twins. My only quibble is the cliche of a location on a remote island so no mobile phone connection. Have you noticed how many situations in films/TV shows/books set in the 80s or earlier could be easily resolved now by a mobile phone call?
This is such a good quality article. Head and shoulders above anything else I've read on here.
Bravo, Alastair. We truly are not worthy.
Beg to differ. The only writer who is any good on here is Mike Smithson.
The rest waffle. Verbosity and flowery language doesn't = quality. With a decent and ruthless editor most of the contributors would be half decent.
Credentials for saying this? Plenty.
Amazon link? Showing would really outweigh telling here, not to mention expand your potential readership.
I think Mysticrose prefers to retain anonymity, which is entirely reasonable. Claiming credentials as a basis for critiques, which on their own merits are not entirely convincing, is trying to have it both ways.
(And I wouldn’t make a thing if it if Mysticrose didn’t repeat the critique quite so often.)
We've never seen Mysticrose and a SeanT poster in the same room at the same time. It's always one or the other.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
We don’t know what the authorities are doing. And in any event, if there is a plot investigation, it would be kept very quiet until the 20th, to avoid any counter action by Trump’s placemen.
Amazon is going to pull their Web service from Parler tonight according to Parler. Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
See my comment earlier - if I was an AWS customer I would be paranoid given the timeframe AWS are insisting on.
How many AWS customers promote and facilitate terrorism?
Do iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal use AWS, GC or Azure? Because those services are definitely used to facilitate terrorism and the owners actively create them in a way to stop authorities being able to do anything about it
What about Apples explicit refusal to work with any government to unlock phones used by terrorists?
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Yes....i can believe his claim capacity is now 200k / day though. I think come April, with 3-4 different vaccines being supplied, we will be able to do multiple millions in a week.
Too late! Need to ramp it up now. Rapid vaccination is the only game in town. (Not French ravers, not tea-drinking Derbyshire blondes, not Dominic Cummings)
A fantastic piece, thanks Alastair. One thing I think is worth adding is that I think Trump became a fascist whilst in power. What’s that saying about power and corruption?
The reason I say this is that in his acceptance speech in the early hours of election night in 2016, he made reference to Hillary Clinton’s phone call. He said something along the lines of it was a harder call for her than it would have been for him. It’s one of the few times he’s shown sympathy and self-awareness. I’m not sure what he’s have done had he lost in 2016, but I don’t think he’d have tried to seize power.
But over the last four years his transformation into despot has been dramatic. And to be fair to some, such as Mr Herdson of this parish, the clues were there.
Hopefully the USA has a look at its processes and systems. We hear a lot about checks and balances, but I don’t see too many of those at the moment.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
I think this is why this needs to be pursued with every tool in the legal arsenal by Congress and the lawmakers. It does appear to be becoming apparent this was far more than just a situation that got out of hand and was carefully (although thankfully poorly) planned in advance. As such Trump does need to be impeached and there then needs to be a formal investigation started at a Federal level to uncover the exact details of the plot.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
Agreed. The coup was plotted at the top, not by the clowns in fancy dress, and attempts to reorient blame on to the invaders who took selfies not hostages simply distract from the real conspirators around and inside the Oval Office.
I don't know what a "conventional" coup looks like, as they're all different and many attempts are full of stupidity, miscalculation and weird accidents. But the allegation is:
1) Trump whipped up people with (false) claims that the election was stolen 2) He purged the Pentagon after the election and put minions in key positions 3) He prepared his people to think something would happen on Jan 6th that would result in him staying 4) He told his people to march on Congress 5) He celebrated the intrusion into Congress when it was happening 6) The people he'd placed in step (2) denied authorization for a response
The key part of this is (2) and (6). If they're correct, as they seem to be, I think it's very clearly a straightforward coup attempt, even if parts of the plan seem to have come out of the underpants-collecting gnomes powerpoint.
Yeah. It doesn't matter that the coup failed. It WAS a coup. And despite the underpants gnomes in Trump's head drawing up the plan and the end of Finding Nemo "What now" response from most of the insurrectionists once they got inside, it almost succeeded.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
My speculation - and it's a guess right now - is that when the full story is told, the guy who shot that female protestor may come to be seen as having made the critical intervention.
There's a video from another angle (to the one I saw on the night) currently on the CNN site. The double doors to the House (or the corridor to the House) are barricaded and covered by officers inside with pistols drawn. The crowd of protestors outside, having failed to push open the doors, smash in the pane of glass of the right hand door. It happens quickly, but if you stop the video you can just see the woman being lifted up towards the hole where the glass had been, when she is shot (in the neck according to reports) and falls backwards out of view.
We know the woman was quickly removed from the building and can assume that the protestors in the vicinity were preoccupied with getting her evacuated immediately after. We also know that, although the chamber was later entered, by that time the politicians had evacuated as none of them were captured.
Word of that shooting would have spread like wildfire through the mob, and brought home the fact that this was now 'real'. I am guessing that many of the protestors may have started leaving the building at that point. And that among the more determined, none of them wanted to volunteer to be the next to get shot.
If this purely speculative account of what might have happened is anywhere close, that shooting turned the tide.
A very interesting account here. It brings home just how close things were. The report that came through while I was on here, that guns had been drawn in the chamber, came in very shortly after the news that all the politicans had been evacuated.
From Alastair's initial paragraph I thought he was going to inveigh against dog walkers. They appear to be increasing exponentially. All too often I seem to be the only dog-free person in the park and therefore an object of deep suspicion. "Where's your little bag of poo?" their accusing eyes seem to say, "Where's your mangey tennis ball, and that stupid stick thing to launch it with? Where's your 20m leash for snaring passers-by? It's alright, he won't hurt you, he just wants to be friendly."
I think we're right to view you with deep suspicion if that's your attitude.
Oh I dunno. I'm a dog owner and I totally get it. There was a tongue-in-cheek article last year about viewing walkers who don't have a dog at their heel as, basically, rapists in the wings.
Someone 'Off-topic'd' this so I'm going to bump it up just to annoy whoever it was. As Alastair began his piece on the subject of dog walking it's hardly off-topic.
It has been mentioned that if you're out running without a dog, that's fine. But tongue-in-cheek or not, prior to the pandemic if you were single and out walking without a dog some people did eye you with suspicion. Holding a dog lead, or a poo bag, or better still an actual dog close by and suddenly you're a person fit for an eyeball to eyeball conversation.
You are also a person who's dog may be about to bite someone.
"He's just being friendly" is the standard pre-bite line.
2 - Probably agree with @IanB2 - the last lot of dog legislation was a dog's breakfast. There was lots of shouting from the RSPCA about "puppy farms", but various parts also killed the economics of small-scale dog breeding. I know of plenty of people doing 1-3 litters a year from home who have just stopped.
And the pups are now being bred on puppy-farms overseas...
I have had several extremely nasty encounters with dogs. One slavering Rottweiler in Pelenque in Mexico tried to bite my face off, he hurled himself at me then his chain tightened just in time - he was an inch from my eyes. Similar experience in Greece. And a couple of nearly-as-bad encounters on walks in the British countryside, with yes, laughing owners saying ‘oh he’s really friendly really’ when their Great Dane is drooling, snarling, boggle eyed and clearly trying to knock me down to maul me
Feck that
Ever since, on long walks, I carry an Ontario Rat foldable knife. A mean beast of a blade that could gut a Doberman in a few seconds. I don’t care if it is illegal. If people are allowed to walk around with dangerous weapons like aggressive, big, badly trained dogs, I will respond with protection.
The knives are also great for cutting common flowers or leaves, slicing toms in picnics, hewing out fossils, and edgeplay if you’re, uh, dogging
I've been chatting to people, esp youngsters ref breaking lockdown rules. Loads of people are not following them. As mentioned on here at the time, it was the Dominic Cummings moment which shattered the bond between people and politicians. Up until then the country was pulling together, united. A plethora of u-turns and bodges on top of the failure to censure Cummings disintegrated our common purpose.
Sorry but this is just rubbish. The idea that people - especially the young - were in any way pulling together and following the rules prior to the Cummings idiocy is just garbage. There was no palpable difference between before and after Cummings as far as attitudes to following the lockdown were concerned. All that happened was those who were going to ignore it no matter what had another excuse to try and justify it. Just go and look at all the reports and pictures from before Cummings to see how rubbish your claims are.
A story which rather tellingly isn't being told in the right wing press. Various trade bodies who represent significant swathes of the economy saying the new rules are so unworkable that the government need to reopen negotiations. This quote from the CEO of Make UK is key:
"“There are customs experts with 30 years’ experience who are baffled by what the new regulations mean, let alone small- and medium-sized businesses who have never had to deal with the kind of paperwork that is now required. The great fear is that for many it will prove too much and they will simply choose not to export to the EU.”"
The government didn't understand how trade works and have ended up with a deal which they don't understand. Having soent years saying fuck business and branding warnings as Project Fear it'll be a painful revelation to find out that manufacturing and logistics experts actually did know what they were talking about after all.
This isn't just "apply the same paperwork as you would for anywhere else what's the problem?" as some parrots on here have re-squawked. This is a deal which does not work at a fundamental practical level for the supply chain of the UK.
Final observation. However bad this gets for the government, Labour will struggle to profit. As the omnishambles deal collapses and the stupidity of both it's structure and the details is laid bare, Labour attacks will be batted aside with a simple line. "You voted for it". Bravo Keith, bravo.
Hardly - the final vote was between leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal.
Both versions introduced whole piles of paperwork the only thing the deal avoided was tariffs on top of the paperwork.
Sadly politicians (and the general public) think it's tariffs that creates issues but as anyone who has exported things will know it's the paperwork that takes time and kills you.
The Tories have a majority of 80. The deal was going to pass regardless of whether the opposition gave their consent or not. So the vote was the deal with our agreement or the deal without the agreement.
An important lesson Labour didn't learn from the Coalition. The coalition did a lot of positive things and a whole pile of negative things. Tory bills backed by LibDem MPs are still hung around the neck of the LibDems years later. "You voted for it". This is the fate that Labour have chosen.
Or as was pointed out by others on here in December - if Labour had voted no the result was attacks that they never wanted us to Leave.
It really was a no win choice for Labour - but I did say continually that they should have just taken the day off and left the Tories to it.
Sadly because of the Covid announcements that wasn't an option.
I suggest that in a few years time 'You never wanted us to Leave' is going to be far less damaging than 'You voted for it".
It would be even better if in a few years no one is ever talking about Brexit again.
Yours, A former Remainer.
Does 'A former Remainer' = 'now a Rejoiner'?
No.
We all need to move on from Brexit. I'm done with it. It's over.
Listening to Starmer on Marr he rejects reintroducing free movement of Labour which of course would see the UK rejoining the single market and customs union, but he said he would want to improve on this 'thin' deal.
Marr pointed out that he had told the Daily Mirror he would bring back free movement of Labour and that his many supporters will be angered by his answer. He reiterated he would not bring free movement of Labour and it must follow that those who support closer ties or rejoining can only have one home and it is not Labour
Step forward the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland
Starmer is messaging the red-wallers and risks pissing off the left of his party. That is his calculation.
Why are so many on the left such fans of free movement of labour?
Because it allows BRITISH people to work, live, learn and visit other EU countries with safeguards for health and financial security.
Something doesn't quite add up. If we can get from bugger all to 2 million in a week, why is Hancock saying it will be Autumn until every adult has been offered a vaccine slot. You would have thought if first statement is true and we will have 3-4 different vaccines supplying us by April, we can get to 3-4 million capacity and be done by summer.
Under promise, over deliver? Perhaps.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
If it was two million done last week then a lot of people who have been slagging off the government are going to have to eat humble pie. I doubt that's what Hancock meant as it would be almost too good to be true. I would absolutely love to be wrong though.
I think its 2 million done total.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
There's no way we've done 2M in a week. At that rate, we'd be done by Easter.
Yes....i can believe his claim capacity is now 200k / day though. I think come April, with 3-4 different vaccines being supplied, we will be able to do multiple millions in a week.
Too late! Need to ramp it up now. Rapid vaccination is the only game in town. (Not French ravers, not tea-drinking Derbyshire blondes, not Dominic Cummings)
You better tell AZN subcontractors to get a shift on then.
I think it is 2m this week. I'd been told at the beginning of the week that the NHS was due supply of over 2m and that there was confidence that all of the doses could be used with the existing network which is build for between two and three million per week.
Assuming it's not a maths error from Hancock (which wouldn't surprise me) and we've hit 2m this week it should be a stepping stone to 4m per week by the end of January so that by the time we get to week 12 and second jabs there's almost 40m people who've had the first one and the remaining 15m first can be done alongside as second jabs ramp up and additional capacity can be added for a few weeks to get everyone a first jab by the end of May and fully immunised with two jabs by the end of August.
That timeframe seems to be what Hancock was referring when he said by autumn all adults would get it.
I am neither mysticrose nor SeanT. I advise against further speculation
How curious - no one on this thread has discussed a connection between Leon and mysticrose or SeanT, simply the connection between SeanT and mysticrose. I am completely bemused as to why you think it has anything to do with you?
Comments
Way before then, we will have vaccinated everyone in the vulnerable groups that needs one.
"He's just being friendly" is the standard pre-bite line.
Two serious points:
1 - Out of control dog owners allow their dogs to kill 15,000 sheep every year. We need some very strong action on that.
http://www.sheepwatch.co.uk/effects-of-sheep-worrying.html
2 - Probably agree with @IanB2 - the last lot of dog legislation was a dog's breakfast. There was lots of shouting from the RSPCA about "puppy farms", but various parts also killed the economics of small-scale dog breeding. I know of plenty of people doing 1-3 litters a year from home who have just stopped.
And the pups are now being bred on puppy-farms overseas...
I enjoy the range. Mike is best for getting a discussion going. Sharp and to the point and never too long however short you are for time.
Alastair is the only lengthy writer who I always read because he makes me laugh. Though if you have time they all produce the odd gem.
Is it it 2 million were done last week? Or we have hit 2 million total? Which is very different.
That said, if he'd also not bothered with the SCOTUS nominee who turned out to be useless to him and instead passed another stimulus and sent everybody another cheque with his signature on it, it's easy to see how he could have won.
Many in the police are clearly Trump supporters, and as David L pointed out it's quite another thing to have the army initiate independent orders.
Why are so many on the left such fans of free movement of labour?
Had we gone to No Deal then Starmer would have been right to oppose that but he made the right call to back the EU trade deal given the crushing defeat voters gave Corbyn in 2019, especially in the Red Wall, after he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement
"Over the last week, he says, the UK has vaccinated around two million people - more people than it did in the entirety of December."
I think he either misspoke or something misunderstood his 2 million statement, then added in the commentary that is more than whole of December. AFAIK, AZN haven't even provided enough vaccines to do that many people.
Dozens, probably hundreds of those clowns are going to go to jail and rightly so. I am not excusing what they did.
He definitely did say though we are now at ability to do 200k / day jabs, with further massive expansion next week...it is all about supply.
If it means some Redwall voters in Tory marginal seats return to Labour from the Tories he will have made the right call
Covid-19: Rapid tests for asymptomatic people to be rolled out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55604677
This comment seems rather stupid.
... But Angela Raffle, a consultant in public health at the University of Bristol Medical School, said increasing lateral flow testing was "very worrying" and warned the benefits of finding symptomless cases "will be outweighed by the many more infectious cases that are missed by these tests"...
We know that lateral flow tests don’t pick up all infections - but depending on the test find anything from 50% to 95%, and even at the lower level will detect the large majority of those most infected. And if they aren’t used, then none of those infected will be found.
Provided that they are used in the knowledge that they are not an all clear (and neither is a PCR test beyond the time at which it was taken), and you still have to take the usual precautions if testing negative, then they will significantly reduce workplace infections.
Had they managed to grab any members of Congress then the coup may have succeeded. Those flexicuffs weren't there by accident. We would have had hostages paraded on social media by these lunatics, perhaps even a show "trial". Trump could have declared martial law and ordered in the troops.
It would have ended bloody. Likely with members of Congress as well as insurgents dead. Any hope of ratifying the election gone. And this is why the GOP members who were part of the plot have to be disbarred from office. Their position is untenable according to the constitution. Yes it won't help "bring the country together". But failed revolutionaries usually end up dead, so anything north of that is them getting off lightly.
But it isn't just AZN that are an issue here. Don't forget many Pfizer doses were set aside for the second dose but could now be used. Plus further Pfizer deliveries. On top of the AZN delivery.
3) he didn't get the votes he expected to get and has heard from people that they weren't able to vote. And that sole reason why this is the case is because Trump discouraged them from voting early.
In reality what he should have done was just to tell people to vote early - if he had done that he would have won.
I don't want to believe he could get that number seriously wrong.
But....
"This has to be the worst book I have read in years. So poorly written that I thought it must have been written as an exercise on a creative writing course. You can just imagine the author ticking off the set pieces, unreliable narrator? Check. Change of narrator? Check. Relationship problem? Check. Do I want to write a thriller, a ghost story a romance or a travelog? I know! I'll do them all! With regard to the references to Skye, I can only assume they took a handful of names, threw them into the air then stuck them onto the first place they thought of. This book is the literary equivalent to day time TV. Just awful."
Or this
"In fact, no star ... what was so tiresome was the inclusion of three, sometimes four adjectives before every noun and as many adverbs with every verb. Also the characters were shallow and unconvincing. A waste of time."
In my view a lot of the problem comes from the ridiculous gap between November 3rd and 20th January (it used to be even longer) during which a defeated President retains full executive power. I don't think any other country does this, certainly not for so long. I think they need to revisit it.
I just had to look up the "underpants gnomes" thing because I had NO idea what people were talking about.
How is it I've missed out on this essential contribution to the cultural canon?
If we have done 2m in a week, I suspect we may have used up most of the Pfizer that is available over the next few weeks, so in the immediate term we might go down rather than up.
Misreporting seems most likely.
200k a day, a robust claim by Hancock, means 1.4m a week. It’s not a stretch to see 2m a week very soon, as huge vax centres open next week. That’s impressive.
Anecdotally, I am now hearing of many friends, acquaintances being vaxed. Eg the 22 year old daughter of a close friend. She works in a care home. She got the shank last Monday
I also get annoyed about 'friendly dogs', particularly when I'm on a walk with my grandmother.
I suspect that, unusually perhaps in these sorts of circumstances, most of those who actually did the invading were unaware that they were part of an actual planned coup attempt. But there will be people below Trump who were put into those positions and who were aware of what was going to be attempted and they should be on trial alongside him.
Right now it looks like the authorities are still treating this as a demo that got out of hand - arresting the indians but not the chiefs and charging them with normal criminal acts. They need to reorient their whole view of this and concentrate on the plot.
There's a video from another angle (to the one I saw on the night) currently on the CNN site. The double doors to the House (or the corridor to the House) are barricaded and covered by officers inside with pistols drawn. The crowd of protestors outside, having failed to push open the doors, smash in the pane of glass of the right hand door. It happens quickly, but if you stop the video you can just see the woman being lifted up towards the hole where the glass had been, when she is shot (in the neck according to reports) and falls backwards out of view.
We know the woman was quickly removed from the building and can assume that the protestors in the vicinity were preoccupied with getting her evacuated immediately after. We also know that, although the chamber was later entered, by that time the politicians had evacuated as none of them were captured.
Word of that shooting would have spread like wildfire through the mob, and brought home the fact that this was now 'real'. I am guessing that many of the protestors may have started leaving the building at that point. And that among the more determined, none of them wanted to volunteer to be the next to get shot.
If this purely speculative account of what might have happened is anywhere close, that shooting turned the tide.
(And I wouldn’t make a thing if it if Mysticrose didn’t repeat the critique quite so often.)
We know you are anti Labour in every regard , I think we all get it by now.
Step forward with what ?
Parler think they'll be able to get up and running again in about a week.
And that's only the first shot.
Of course you are right, and we're talking dozens of weeks, not dozens of days. and yes, 2M per week sounds very achievable. I'll go drink a vat of coffee now to give my brain a shake.
All this action will have been carefully coordinated by the big tech firms, so i expect to hear Google and Microsoft come out shortly and say they are banned from using their web hosting services
So banned from the apps stores and banned from all the services that allow scalablility on the internet.
Sean has never before showed the ability to maintain a persona for any length of time, which didn’t bleed into all of the others.
He also looked pretty happy so things are likely going well.
And even more convincingly, he is rarely up so early on a Sunday morning.
Not much has been made of the fact that Biden won the popular vote by over 7million. As McConnell said, it wasn't really very close. If it had been closer, say about 4million, I think the insurrection might have been much stronger and more dangerous. Then again, it's perfectly possible that the Electoral College would have converted a defeat on that scale into a win for Trump.
That too cannot be right.
Feck that
Ever since, on long walks, I carry an Ontario Rat foldable knife. A mean beast of a blade that could gut a Doberman in a few seconds. I don’t care if it is illegal. If people are allowed to walk around with dangerous weapons like aggressive, big, badly trained dogs, I will respond with protection.
The knives are also great for cutting common flowers or leaves, slicing toms in picnics, hewing out fossils, and edgeplay if you’re, uh, dogging
You are absolutely right in your implication that once the vulnerable are vaccinated, lockdown should end. But, as Matthew Parris pointed out yesterday, that will require public pressure as Whitty and his acolytes will push for continued for restrictions.
It is imperative that they don’t win that one.
Personally I would want to throw the book at him but already there are many saying that prosecuting Trump would only divide people further etc. The US could be facing a major crisis.
I have zero problems with the argument that AWS can decide they don't want someone as a customer - I just believe they should provide enough time for you to get off their network and less than 24 hours notice on a Sunday isn't anywhere near enough time.
My only quibble is the cliche of a location on a remote island so no mobile phone connection.
Have you noticed how many situations in films/TV shows/books set in the 80s or earlier could be easily resolved now by a mobile phone call?
And in any event, if there is a plot investigation, it would be kept very quiet until the 20th, to avoid any counter action by Trump’s placemen.
What about Apples explicit refusal to work with any government to unlock phones used by terrorists?
Where do we draw the line, I don't know.
The reason I say this is that in his acceptance speech in the early hours of election night in 2016, he made reference to Hillary Clinton’s phone call. He said something along the lines of it was a harder call for her than it would have been for him. It’s one of the few times he’s shown sympathy and self-awareness. I’m not sure what he’s have done had he lost in 2016, but I don’t think he’d have tried to seize power.
But over the last four years his transformation into despot has been dramatic. And to be fair to some, such as Mr Herdson of this parish, the clues were there.
Hopefully the USA has a look at its processes and systems. We hear a lot about checks and balances, but I don’t see too many of those at the moment.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1348219539448885248?s=20
Anything from the EU yet?
Assuming it's not a maths error from Hancock (which wouldn't surprise me) and we've hit 2m this week it should be a stepping stone to 4m per week by the end of January so that by the time we get to week 12 and second jabs there's almost 40m people who've had the first one and the remaining 15m first can be done alongside as second jabs ramp up and additional capacity can be added for a few weeks to get everyone a first jab by the end of May and fully immunised with two jabs by the end of August.
That timeframe seems to be what Hancock was referring when he said by autumn all adults would get it.