Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The speculation mounts that McConnell could support the impeachment move – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 13 in General
imageThe speculation mounts that McConnell could support the impeachment move – politicalbetting.com

The big development overnight on Trump is a report in the New York Times that Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell could just possibly support the Democratic move to impeach.

Read the full story here

«13456712

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    First as Mitch McConnell will be when the senate has to vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    I say give the turd a good flush before the Biden inauguration.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 4,904
    edited January 13
    4th.

    Like the pridge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    edited January 13
    Warning shot to Trump. But hopefully so. He has nothing to lose, it's probably his last term and for a few years at the least Dems will hold the Senate, barely. Sure he'll have plenty of pull, but might as well cut out Trump and take the hit.

    I suspect he'll roll back when the big day arrives.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,068
    Yes, 9/1 looks good. Best for all concerned to get this done quickly.
  • Betfair -- Trump to leave before end of first term
    Yes 9.2
    No 1.11

    So the market is unconvinced by McConnell's posturing.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,536
    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Fair point on the odds though, that seems worth a gamble
  • I'd love to see it happen but like that turd blossom Lindsey Graham I suspect Cocaine Mitch will be back on the Trump train.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/12/lindsey-graham-travels-with-trump-to-texas-a-week-after-renouncing-him/?sh=28953802d9d2
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    Huh?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    I dismiss most who try to make too much of such comparisons but in fairness I think they compare more than those examples when doing so or are relying on examples made previously.
  • Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,317
    What would happen to the Presidency if Trump were removed from office before Biden took over? Would Pence become acting President or President?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,966

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    Boris Derangement Syndrome is a sad, incurable ailment that destroys the sense of proportion of its sufferers.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 20,924
    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494
    Apsana Begum handing Williamson's arse to him on FSM. He doesn't have any answers at all.
  • Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    Outrageous. Clearly Boris is far worse - Trump didn't stick two fingers up to the EU, now did he?
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295
    kle4 said:

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    I dismiss most who try to make too much of such comparisons but in fairness I think they compare more than those examples when doing so or are relying on examples made previously.
    So Johnson publishes newspaper columns that bandy about racial slurs and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.
  • So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    Yes. I think it must be their hair, or their ... look, squirrel. :smiley:
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,670
    That market was a massive loser for me. I was convinced that Trump was going to do something utterly impeachable and be kicked out. I massively underestimated Republican willingness to stand by their candidate.

    Maybe 9/1 is value... but I don't like the timescale element of the bet. I'd happily take lower odds on successful conviction without the timeline.
  • So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    One unlawfully tried to stop the nation's Parliament meeting to do its democratic duty whilst Boris Johnson's prorogation shambles, sorry I've lost my train of thought.

    :wink:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    No, because the only penalty of conviction on impeachment would be removal from and disbarment from office.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    kle4 said:

    Fair point on the odds though, that seems worth a gamble

    Not really. He has 1 week left. Even if the Republicans in the Senate back impeachment he is entitled to a trial. I don't see that trial being concluded in a week so he will remain in office to January 20th. The only way he is not in office in 7 days time is if he resigns and I don't see that happening.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156
    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514

    kle4 said:

    So Trump incites a riot and the invasion of the Capitol Building and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.

    I dismiss most who try to make too much of such comparisons but in fairness I think they compare more than those examples when doing so or are relying on examples made previously.
    So Johnson publishes newspaper columns that bandy about racial slurs and Boris goes for a Sunday afternoon bike ride and they are compared as similar people.
    I think the prorogation issue and declared willingness to breach international law are more generally cited.

    As I say I think most such comparisons are overblown, but if dismissed it needs dismissing on the grounds on which it is made, not comparing the littlest and biggest issues respectively.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.

    Agreed.

    Much better than 9/1 that Trump will be impeached, but it will be after Biden's inauguration not before it.

    It is far easier to stick a knife into a corpse once the deed is already done. Have Biden be inaugurated and then the Senators can bury Trump career without removing a GOP President from office.

    It will be like the trial of Pope Formosus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kjh said:

    The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    non-story...


    You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
    It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/
    Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
    It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
    It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

    If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
    Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

    If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

    Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

    Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

    So this is why it is important:

    I break the rules - no impact
    Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

    Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
    Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

    His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

    What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller



    Democratic decision making in action.
    'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

    More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

    On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
    I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
  • kinabalu said:

    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

    I can see the appeal for the GOP of having him taken out and shot - removes him and his coterie from the stage.

    However, Trump has whipped up a seemingly significant portion of the republican electorate so that they are suffering from foaming dog fever. Toppling The King may be a Bad Idea if you want these people to not kill you vote for you in future.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    DavidL said:

    The temptation to back this and get it off the agenda, whilst distancing the party from the disgraceful scenes of the Capitol invasion, must be considerable.

    The problem is not so much Trump, who is yesterday's news, but those idiots who argued against democracy in the Chambers at Trump's bidding, even after the invasion.

    More of them in the House than Senate, as proportions too, but worrying in terms of the rest talking down their anger as the weeks stretch out.

    Trump continuing to defend himself may sway them to convict, give him back his YouTube account.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230
    DavidL said:

    The temptation to back this and get it off the agenda, whilst distancing the party from the disgraceful scenes of the Capitol invasion, must be considerable.

    The problem is not so much Trump, who is yesterday's news, but those idiots who argued against democracy in the Chambers at Trump's bidding, even after the invasion.

    Not so sure about yesterday's news. I am reminded of the expression 'shit on a blanket' (which I heard ex the East Ender docker father of a work colleague many years ago).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514

    kinabalu said:

    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

    I can see the appeal for the GOP of having him taken out and shot - removes him and his coterie from the stage.

    However, Trump has whipped up a seemingly significant portion of the republican electorate so that they are suffering from foaming dog fever. Toppling The King may be a Bad Idea if you want these people to not kill you vote for you in future.
    Once gone they might explode in fury or switch position faster than imagined.

    But they've already exploded once. Might as well take them on now rather than later.

    Ultimately do they want to willingly be Trump's bitch, as he would think it, or fight back against this loser?

    Have some pride.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.

    Agreed.

    Much better than 9/1 that Trump will be impeached, but it will be after Biden's inauguration not before it.

    It is far easier to stick a knife into a corpse once the deed is already done. Have Biden be inaugurated and then the Senators can bury Trump career without removing a GOP President from office.

    It will be like the trial of Pope Formosus.
    Not read about that before. Completely absurd. Almost as absurd as the Scottish High Court spending scarce resources on a further appeal in the name of the deceased Magrahi.

    I think following this precedent Magrahi's remains should really be exhumed and be present for the hearing. It might make it more interesting.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
    Doesn't say much for Mr Hancokc that he can't think on his feet and tergiversate in even that relatively simple way.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,362
    edited January 13

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    Hancock's interview on Today was almost as bad. Couldn't answer the key question of the moment, how many vaccine doses are available now, just kept saying the 13m target would be met by 15 February even though the current numbers - 145k yesterday - are nowhere near enough to get us there (and are also considerably below the 200k per day he claimed at the weekend).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,711
    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kjh said:

    The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    non-story...


    You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
    It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/
    Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
    It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
    It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

    If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
    Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

    If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

    Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

    Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

    So this is why it is important:

    I break the rules - no impact
    Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

    Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
    Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

    His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

    What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller



    Democratic decision making in action.
    'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

    More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

    On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
    I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
    kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)

    I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.

    And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,146
    edited January 13
    kinabalu said:

    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

    I'm sure the GOP would love to be rid of Trump but not enough of them have got the guts to do it.

    They are living on their knees, shit scared of the QAnon brigade.

    Appeasing loonies rarely works out well.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Carnyx said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
    Doesn't say much for Mr Hancokc that he can't think on his feet and tergiversate in even that relatively simple way.
    Nice use of tergiversate.
  • Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
    That would be a reasonable attempt. A competent government of the past would have recognised there was a political problem and would have issued a line to take. Not this lot. Did you vote against it? I'm glad we have implemented it. But you voted against! Erm, um, I'm glad we have been able to implement it.

    Of course the problem with the "Rishi sez no" line to take is that it only further highlights the government's mad priorities when it comes to public money. Cash for well fed people to have cheap restaurant dinners? No problem. Cash for our mates? Here's £100m. Cash for feeding hungry kids? Fuck off their mam will spend it on tabs and booze.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182
    edited January 13
    Carnyx said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
    Doesn't say much for Mr Hancokc that he can't think on his feet and tergiversate in even that relatively simple way.
    Ooh, nice word! New one on me. I would describe it as honesty rather than 'tergiversation' but I agree, he should be able to respond coherently regarding his past voting record. You're preaching to the choir, as I've never really rated him, though many say he's improved during the coronavirus episode.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    Saw exactly the same with the discharge of infected patients into care homes last year. I despise the man.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230
    edited January 13
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/01/free-school-meal-scandal-why-government-failing-feed-people-during-pandemic

    More on food parcels, incluidng shielding people - and reminding us of the problem of formal specifications for the latter vs real deliveries.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    It would have to amend the Former Presidents Act, which states the following:
    As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

    (1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

    (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    (3) who does not then currently hold such office.


    So that would need changing to 'shall not have suffered impeachment and conviction.'

    They could do it but I think probably they won't. THat would look vindictive, fuel his claims of a conspiracy against him and really would set many cats among many Republican pigeons...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    " We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."

    I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

    A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    edited January 13
    (FPT)
    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    I've been thinking about the vaccine design.

    Simple evolutionary theory would suggest that if the virus mutates to a form that is more transmissible, all other things being equal, it will have an evolutionary advantage. The spike protein is the bit of the virus that binds to human cells, the first stage in successful transmission. So mutations in the spike protein that result is greater transmissibility are a predictable development. All the current viruses have been developed to target the virus spike protein. The very bit of the virus that could have been predicted to mutate for evolutionary advantage - and therefore risk vaccine escape?

    I think that the spike protein was chosen as the target for vaccines because it was a relatively simple to design vaccines to target this bit of the virus. But was it the best choice or strategy, given the above?

    Its beyond my ability, but wasnt there a story that scientists believed they could tweak the relevant element pretty quickly if needed?
    Yes. Which is great. But far better to avoid vaccine escape in the first place if that's possible. I don't know if targeting an additional or different part of the virus could have been easily done and effective or not. It just seems logical to me, with what we are seeing, that targeting the spike protein could be problematic for sustained vaccine efficacy.
    It could.
    But the body produces many different antibodies to the spike protein, so it's not a simple matter at all. And the strong likelihood seems to be that even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective.

    Now we know more about the virus, it's likely that future vaccines will incorporate a mixture targeting several different modifications/evolutions of the spike protein (something relatively simple to do with the mRNA vaccines), which would make vaccine escape very hard.
    Manufacturers just didn't have either the knowledge or time to do so last year.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    The Congress cannot remove him. That requires the Senate to vote for the impeachment by the qualified majority after the trial and after evidence. I just don't see how that is possible whilst he is still in office but it should be done afterwards.
  • kle4 said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
    We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

    So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

    So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156

    kinabalu said:

    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

    I can see the appeal for the GOP of having him taken out and shot - removes him and his coterie from the stage.

    However, Trump has whipped up a seemingly significant portion of the republican electorate so that they are suffering from foaming dog fever. Toppling The King may be a Bad Idea if you want these people to not kill you vote for you in future.
    Yep. They really have a problem. I think with this far right MAGA lark, it's too dangerous to toy around with. They need to kill it off as a serious strand in the party. A painful process no doubt, and there will be blood, but I don't see much of an alternative.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    Carnyx said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    I wouldn't say that. I'd say something like this:

    'As politicians, we don't vote against initiatives like this because we don't like feeding kids. We make tough decisions every day, and at the time, my judgement was that this policy wasn't affordable. The Chancellor has now found the required funding, and obviously I'm as delighted as anyone else that we can now help these families out.'
    Doesn't say much for Mr Hancokc that he can't think on his feet and tergiversate in even that relatively simple way.
    Says quite a lot about him, though.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,966
    edited January 13

    One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

    A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?

    Well, they could just change the rules so that the size of the Presidential Library is proportional to the number of books the President has read...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    It would have to amend the Former Presidents Act, which states the following:
    As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

    (1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

    (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    (3) who does not then currently hold such office.


    So that would need changing to 'shall not have suffered impeachment and conviction.'

    They could do it but I think probably they won't. THat would look vindictive, fuel his claims of a conspiracy against him and really would set many cats among many Republican pigeons...
    Having impeached Trump pursuant to section 4 of article II could they not simply pass a bill to say that for the purposes of that legislation that Trump's term of office shall be deemed terminated pursuant to section 4 of article II?

    Essentially backdating the removal.

    The fact that the impeachment occurred in the House prior to inauguration could provide enough cover to do that as a grey area even if the Senate haven't convicted in time.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    edited January 13
    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
  • DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Fair point on the odds though, that seems worth a gamble

    Not really. He has 1 week left. Even if the Republicans in the Senate back impeachment he is entitled to a trial. I don't see that trial being concluded in a week so he will remain in office to January 20th. The only way he is not in office in 7 days time is if he resigns and I don't see that happening.
    Having sent a lynch mob after Pence he'd be well-advised to sit tight for another week. But, of course, he isn't well-advised, so it's anyone's bet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    The Congress cannot remove him. That requires the Senate to vote for the impeachment by the qualified majority after the trial and after evidence. I just don't see how that is possible whilst he is still in office but it should be done afterwards.
    I get that, I'm talking about a post-inauguration impeachment. Essentially backdating and activating that provision.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    It would have to amend the Former Presidents Act, which states the following:
    As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

    (1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

    (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    (3) who does not then currently hold such office.


    So that would need changing to 'shall not have suffered impeachment and conviction.'

    They could do it but I think probably they won't. THat would look vindictive, fuel his claims of a conspiracy against him and really would set many cats among many Republican pigeons...
    Having impeached Trump pursuant to section 4 of article II could they not simply pass a bill to say that for the purposes of that legislation that Trump's term of office shall be deemed terminated pursuant to section 4 of article II?

    Essentially backdating the removal.

    The fact that the impeachment occurred in the House prior to inauguration could provide enough cover to do that as a grey area even if the Senate haven't convicted in time.
    No, because that would mean rewriting the Constitution. His term will have ended before he's convicted (if he is).

    They could amend the FPA, however. Whether that would be wise is another question.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,707

    I say give the turd a good flush before the Biden inauguration.

    A bit Martin Luther King. Gives Biden a good line

    '.....Cleared through the great U-Bend of history........'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230
    edited January 13

    Imo McConnell wants this kicked into the long grass past next week's inauguration rather than risk a GOP President being forced out of office.

    Agreed.

    Much better than 9/1 that Trump will be impeached, but it will be after Biden's inauguration not before it.

    It is far easier to stick a knife into a corpse once the deed is already done. Have Biden be inaugurated and then the Senators can bury Trump career without removing a GOP President from office.

    It will be like the trial of Pope Formosus.
    That rang a bell. There is a rather jolly painting ...

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182
    DavidL said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    " We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."

    I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
    Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    The Congress cannot remove him. That requires the Senate to vote for the impeachment by the qualified majority after the trial and after evidence. I just don't see how that is possible whilst he is still in office but it should be done afterwards.
    I get that, I'm talking about a post-inauguration impeachment. Essentially backdating and activating that provision.
    That wouldn't be a win on the bet though, would it. I find the idea of betting on his removal in the next 7 days a bit daft, no matter how welcome that would be.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    It would have to amend the Former Presidents Act, which states the following:
    As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

    (1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

    (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    (3) who does not then currently hold such office.


    So that would need changing to 'shall not have suffered impeachment and conviction.'

    They could do it but I think probably they won't. THat would look vindictive, fuel his claims of a conspiracy against him and really would set many cats among many Republican pigeons...
    Having impeached Trump pursuant to section 4 of article II could they not simply pass a bill to say that for the purposes of that legislation that Trump's term of office shall be deemed terminated pursuant to section 4 of article II?

    Essentially backdating the removal.

    The fact that the impeachment occurred in the House prior to inauguration could provide enough cover to do that as a grey area even if the Senate haven't convicted in time.
    No, because that would mean rewriting the Constitution. His term will have ended before he's convicted (if he is).

    They could amend the FPA, however. Whether that would be wise is another question.
    If they're prepared to convict they ought to be prepared to amend the FPA.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 44,520
    Hoyle so much better than Bercow - telling off both Starmer & Johnson and making it about the Commons and back benchers and not about himself.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302

    Hoyle so much better than Bercow - telling off both Starmer & Johnson and making it about the Commons and back benchers and not about himself.

    So far best speaker since Betty.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230

    kle4 said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
    We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

    So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

    So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
    And an opportunity to make the pawn sacrifice into a poisoned pawn and wrongfoot the opposition (not always possible, but at least blunt the attack).
  • OllyT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Trump is politically a ex-parrot, nevertheless if a quick & dirty Senate conviction is on I hope they go for it. This is the leader and love object of the global far right, so in the immortal words of Delia Smith - Let's Be Having Him!

    I'm sure the GOP would love to be rid of Trump but not enough of them have got the guts to do it.

    They are living on their knees, shit scared of the QAnon brigade.

    Appeasing loonies rarely works out well.
    QAnon is very powerful considering the almost universal agreement among whoever won the last election or referendum that social media trolls did not influence a single voter. I'd say the chances of the Conservatives, Labour or SNP acting to regulate social media use at an election are close to zero.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494
    Williamson now falling to pieces over OFSTED.

    This is a train crash. A 150 minute, high speed, broken rail with 747 putting down on the ruins train crash.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,707

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It doesn't help that he looks like he's on the toilet....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    edited January 13

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    edited January 13
    Interesting that Nixon would have been entitled to the benefits of the FPA but had the decency to voluntarily give them up.

    I doubt Trump even if convicted by the Senate would have as much self-respect and decency as Nixon had.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 34,494

    Interesting that Nixon would have been entitled to the benefits of the FPA but had the decency to voluntary give them up.

    I doubt Trump even if convicted by the Senate would have as much self-respect and decency as Nixon had.

    In 1985 - 11 years later.

    (And wasn't it only Secret Service protection, or did he give up his pension too?)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    I've been thinking about the vaccine design.

    Simple evolutionary theory would suggest that if the virus mutates to a form that is more transmissible, all other things being equal, it will have an evolutionary advantage. The spike protein is the bit of the virus that binds to human cells, the first stage in successful transmission. So mutations in the spike protein that result is greater transmissibility are a predictable development. All the current viruses have been developed to target the virus spike protein. The very bit of the virus that could have been predicted to mutate for evolutionary advantage - and therefore risk vaccine escape?

    I think that the spike protein was chosen as the target for vaccines because it was a relatively simple to design vaccines to target this bit of the virus. But was it the best choice or strategy, given the above?

    Its beyond my ability, but wasnt there a story that scientists believed they could tweak the relevant element pretty quickly if needed?
    Yes. Which is great. But far better to avoid vaccine escape in the first place if that's possible. I don't know if targeting an additional or different part of the virus could have been easily done and effective or not. It just seems logical to me, with what we are seeing, that targeting the spike protein could be problematic for sustained vaccine efficacy.
    It could.
    But the body produces many different antibodies to the spike protein, so it's not a simple matter at all. And the strong likelihood seems to be that even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective.

    Now we know more about the virus, it's likely that future vaccines will incorporate a mixture targeting several different modifications/evolutions of the spike protein (something relatively simple to do with the mRNA vaccines), which would make vaccine escape very hard.
    Manufacturers just didn't have either the knowledge or time to do so last year.
    I say again, we actually need Trump bleach. We need an all-purpose anti-viral cleanser that can be safely ingested, injected, or introduced by some other means. Viruses are not always harmful, but they are also not necessary to the body's ecosystem, so no danger of 'killing beneficial viruses' as there is with antibiotics killing beneficial flora. It's a silly anachronism that this doesn't exist in the marketplace.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Does Trump not lose his 'advantages' as a Past President if successfully impeached. Could be disastrous for him and his family.

    By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions.

    Sorry Donald, you're going to need that Obamacare.....
    But he won't have been. There isn't time for him to be *removed* from office.
    That's probably up to Congress to decide.

    If Congress were to vote to impeach and vote to bar him, then surely Congress could also vote to say formally that it enacts the provisions to remove the pension, staff and offices etc with a clean bill to do so? Even if technically it didn't?
    The Congress cannot remove him. That requires the Senate to vote for the impeachment by the qualified majority after the trial and after evidence. I just don't see how that is possible whilst he is still in office but it should be done afterwards.
    I get that, I'm talking about a post-inauguration impeachment. Essentially backdating and activating that provision.
    That wouldn't be a win on the bet though, would it. I find the idea of betting on his removal in the next 7 days a bit daft, no matter how welcome that would be.
    Oh yes, I made that point myself. It would be post-inauguration. Easier to stab him in the back once he's already politically dead.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    Hancock's interview on Today was almost as bad. Couldn't answer the key question of the moment, how many vaccine doses are available now, just kept saying the 13m target would be met by 15 February even though the current numbers - 145k yesterday - are nowhere near enough to get us there (and are also considerably below the 200k per day he claimed at the weekend).
    Between Jan 3rd and jan 10th there were

    2,677,971- 1,296,432 = 1,381,539 vaccinations (both 1st and 2nd)

    Which comes out to 197,362 per day averaged over a 7 day week.

    The rate per day will vary over the week, just as the rate for testing does. The patterns in this will become apparent as we get more data.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kjh said:

    The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    non-story...


    You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
    It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/
    Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
    It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
    It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

    If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
    Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

    If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

    Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

    Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

    So this is why it is important:

    I break the rules - no impact
    Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

    Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
    Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

    His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

    What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller



    Democratic decision making in action.
    'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

    More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

    On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
    I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
    kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)

    I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.

    And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
    Not sure I agree.

    On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."

    And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.

    It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.

    Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.

    I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

    A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?

    Well presidential records, which are the property of the US government, need to be kept somewhere.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_library

    Such libraries are an awkward public/private mix in terms of funding, concept and administration but until Trump, that hasn't really been a deeply contested matter.
    It will be now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    ydoethur said:

    Williamson now falling to pieces over OFSTED.

    This is a train crash. A 150 minute, high speed, broken rail with 747 putting down on the ruins train crash.

    So about normal for Williamson then? Nothing special?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kjh said:

    The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    non-story...


    You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
    It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19000892.council-boss-issues-stay-home-warning-holiday-maldives/
    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19005450.complaint-made-councillor-living-french-holiday-home/
    Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
    It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
    It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.

    If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
    Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.

    If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.

    Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).

    Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.

    So this is why it is important:

    I break the rules - no impact
    Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.

    Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
    Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.

    His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.

    What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour controlled Exeter council votes to remove statute of General Buller



    Democratic decision making in action.
    'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'

    More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?

    On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
    I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
    kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)

    I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.

    And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
    Not sure I agree.

    On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."

    And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.

    It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.

    Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.

    I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
    Precisely. If people can make up and blow up any irrelevant story that has no meaning to it other than people dislike the person they're criticising then there's no foresight to prevent that. If it wasn't riding a bike it would be going shopping, or anything else. There will always be something irrelevant if that is how low you set the bar.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    kle4 said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
    We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

    So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

    So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
    Agreed.
    I said much the same last year.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,362

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115

    kle4 said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
    We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

    So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

    So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
    You have worked for some good people.

    On one occasion I had to go to bat for a junior, who fucked up. He realised that the fuck up could cause a big problem and reported it to me.

    The pressure to punish him from above was intense - and weirdly, some of it sounded like "punish the weakling for owning up. A strong man..."... Not in words, but in tone.
  • Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.

    Sometimes it's the only way out.
    We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

    So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.

    So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
    And an opportunity to make the pawn sacrifice into a poisoned pawn and wrongfoot the opposition (not always possible, but at least blunt the attack).
    Without Dom the Govt are reduced to one-dimensional chess.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    Nigelb said:

    One other minor reason for the GOP to vote to impeach (post-inauguration if need be) is that former Presidents typically get a Federal Presidential Library in their name as part of their legacy.

    A Trump Library could become a Mecca for QAnon nuts and white supremacists. Do the GOP Senators still want to be associated with that indefinitely into the future after last Wednesday?

    Well presidential records, which are the property of the US government, need to be kept somewhere.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_library

    Such libraries are an awkward public/private mix in terms of funding, concept and administration but until Trump, that hasn't really been a deeply contested matter.
    It will be now.
    I suspect that a fair number of the papers will be in various Attorney General's offices for some time to come.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    stjohn said:

    kle4 said:

    stjohn said:

    I've been thinking about the vaccine design.

    Simple evolutionary theory would suggest that if the virus mutates to a form that is more transmissible, all other things being equal, it will have an evolutionary advantage. The spike protein is the bit of the virus that binds to human cells, the first stage in successful transmission. So mutations in the spike protein that result is greater transmissibility are a predictable development. All the current viruses have been developed to target the virus spike protein. The very bit of the virus that could have been predicted to mutate for evolutionary advantage - and therefore risk vaccine escape?

    I think that the spike protein was chosen as the target for vaccines because it was a relatively simple to design vaccines to target this bit of the virus. But was it the best choice or strategy, given the above?

    Its beyond my ability, but wasnt there a story that scientists believed they could tweak the relevant element pretty quickly if needed?
    Yes. Which is great. But far better to avoid vaccine escape in the first place if that's possible. I don't know if targeting an additional or different part of the virus could have been easily done and effective or not. It just seems logical to me, with what we are seeing, that targeting the spike protein could be problematic for sustained vaccine efficacy.
    It could.
    But the body produces many different antibodies to the spike protein, so it's not a simple matter at all. And the strong likelihood seems to be that even a virus evolved for vaccine escape won't simply become ineffective, just less effective.

    Now we know more about the virus, it's likely that future vaccines will incorporate a mixture targeting several different modifications/evolutions of the spike protein (something relatively simple to do with the mRNA vaccines), which would make vaccine escape very hard.
    Manufacturers just didn't have either the knowledge or time to do so last year.
    I say again, we actually need Trump bleach. We need an all-purpose anti-viral cleanser that can be safely ingested, injected, or introduced by some other means. Viruses are not always harmful, but they are also not necessary to the body's ecosystem, so no danger of 'killing beneficial viruses' as there is with antibiotics killing beneficial flora. It's a silly anachronism that this doesn't exist in the marketplace.
    Not only is that concept a sheer fantasy, it ignore the fact that you have many more viruses in your gut than bacteria - and they are absolutely necessary to a stable gut microbiome.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 27,581
    edited January 13
    DavidL said:

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
    It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
  • Ah, the New York Times - so it must be true!
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,030
    If Trump is removed before his term ends it would lead to the slightly farcical spectacle of Pence being President for a few hours. Would he need to pick a VP?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
    But once we get past them, and many of them do drive, we need mass vaccination as fast as possible of the rest of us. Seeing if this is the best way to do this seems reasonable, doesn't it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 38,775

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
    And it seems diverting supply away from GPs (see Telegraph).

    Looks like centralised stuff for photo opps rather than sense, but above my pay grade.

    I better not find out I can't go and get vaccine at my local GPs because it is all being handled at a sports arena 20 miles away.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 50,909
    edited January 13

    Not sure if this was posted earlier or not:

    ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals"
    Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?"
    ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place"
    Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"

    It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue.
    People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
    Hancock's interview on Today was almost as bad. Couldn't answer the key question of the moment, how many vaccine doses are available now, just kept saying the 13m target would be met by 15 February even though the current numbers - 145k yesterday - are nowhere near enough to get us there (and are also considerably below the 200k per day he claimed at the weekend).
    Between Jan 3rd and jan 10th there were

    2,677,971- 1,296,432 = 1,381,539 vaccinations (both 1st and 2nd)

    Which comes out to 197,362 per day averaged over a 7 day week.

    The rate per day will vary over the week, just as the rate for testing does. The patterns in this will become apparent as we get more data.
    So what he claimed was correct after all. And that's even before any of the mass vaccination sites start up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
    And it seems diverting supply away from GPs (see Telegraph).

    Looks like centralised stuff for photo opps rather than sense, but above my pay grade.

    I better not find out I can't go and get vaccine at my local GPs because it is all being handled at a sports arena 20 miles away.
    Why? Because you couldn't be arsed going that far? Whatever is the most efficient and the fastest for me. This remains a race against the virus and the hospitals are running out of time.
  • ydoethur said:

    Williamson now falling to pieces over OFSTED.

    This is a train crash. A 150 minute, high speed, broken rail with 747 putting down on the ruins train crash.

    So better than Gavin's usual, eh?

    Did you see this?



    Two standout points:

    1 That Gove deliberately made School Commissioner Regions mad, to prevent the influence of local and regional politicians. So London is cut between 3 regions, which then go out to Norfolk or the Isle of Wight. West Yorkshire is lumped in with Lancashire. And so on.

    2 The suggestion that Westminster would have run the epidemic even hotter (more cases and deaths) had there been more hospital capacity.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
    And it seems diverting supply away from GPs (see Telegraph).

    Looks like centralised stuff for photo opps rather than sense, but above my pay grade.

    I better not find out I can't go and get vaccine at my local GPs because it is all being handled at a sports arena 20 miles away.
    Exactly, as some of us don't have cars but are within easy walking distance of our GPs.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 50,909

    Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?

    We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.

    Whole idea of huge centralised vaccination centres smacks of a decision taken with headlines rather than practicality in mind. We want to vaccinate the elderly and the vulnerable who often can't drive, find travel difficult and rarely leave their local area, even in normal times. So we will ask them to get themselves to a huge centre many miles away, potentially at 3am. And how is all this being fed into patient records held by GPs?
    And it seems diverting supply away from GPs (see Telegraph).

    Looks like centralised stuff for photo opps rather than sense, but above my pay grade.

    I better not find out I can't go and get vaccine at my local GPs because it is all being handled at a sports arena 20 miles away.
    I thought the diversion was for other GPs in regions that haven't had the same number of vaccines?
Sign In or Register to comment.