Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
Over 3 million vaccinated and ramping up fast. We're weeks away from turning the tide on this plague.
To clarify, 2.9 million vaccinations have been provided from December 8th to the end of yesterday - 2.1 million people have received one dose of vaccine, 400,000 people have received two doses of vaccine.
Yesterday, 248,000 vaccinations were administered - 240,000 were first vaccinations and 8,000 or so second vaccinations.
Er...
Even the out of date government website is showing 2,639,309 first dose + 428,232 second dose = 3,067,541 total by 12th January.
The figure for yesterday seems to be 278,000 nationally.
The point is that isn't 3 million people vaccinated - 428,000 have had both doses of vaccine and 2.2 million have had a single dose so it's 2.6 million who have actually been vaccinated.
As we have decided (apparently), the Pfizer vaccine doesn't need to be administered twice within three weeks, the figures of those deemed to have been fully vaccinated will go up.
I must admit I thought the other vaccines achieved maximum efficacy after two vaccinations but apparently I was either a) wrong or b) those manufacturing the vaccine are wrong or c) it's been deemed "better" to get some immunity for as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
I am still confused, however.
Does anyone know for long these vaccinations will bestow immunity? The flu vaccination is administered every year so will we have to go through the same with the Covid-19 vaccination?
I imagine in time the vaccines will be improved to provide longer-lasting and more effective immunity with a single vaccination which is all to the good so perhaps the next vaccination will provide two or three years protection.
I'm also wondering if Covid-19 will become the dominant virus strain in the future supplanting older viruses.
Some interesting questions there which I can't answer except to offer the view that the flu vaccine is annual to keep the recipient's immunity upto date with emerging flu virus mutations.
Personally, I'm expecting the same with covid going forward.
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
And be remembered in history as the coward who broke the Union.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
Indeed. Just as some countries are better at doing Parliamentary democracy than others. It relies on having grown ups devising the system... so perhaps we might wait a few years before making any changes
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
I don't know if Zahawi, Hancock (and sure those who were part of the vaccine planning), but interesting the difference between this and many other government programmes...we see a decent jump in capacity and immediately its pushing for the next increased target, no let up, no resting on laurels and loads of data making it clear how different regions / arms of programme are doing.
Zahawi looks confident and plausible, and talks clearly and effectively. It may be bluster but he could be a Man to Watch.
If he nails the vaccine roll-out (and so far, so good) then.... who knows?
From a brutal Iraqi refugee background, he became a hugely successful and wealthy businessman. He also studied Chemical Engineering at UCL which does give one modest hope that he know his STEM-shit with this virus.
Hmm.....
His moustache colouring has rather unfortunate appearance of Hitler though.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal
That is not true
And you know it
Christ. You're desperate for a Scots indyref2 so they vote YES so you can blame the break-up of the Union on Brexit.
This is pathological. There are treatments available.
We left the EU as the result of a none binding advisory referendum.
Of all the many many lame-arse arguments that Remoaners trot out, so they can - or could - hope to avoid the biggest democratic vote in British political history, this is the worst.
The government explicitly promised, in a letter sent to EVERYONE, that the vote would be final and decisive. YOUR vote, YOUR choice. ONCE in a generation.
Just to make things clear, the prime minister of the country said the same, in a speech.
"It will be your decision whether we remain in the EU, or whether we leave. It will be the FINAL DECISION. You, the British people, will decide. NOT politicians, NOT PARLIAMENT... Just YOU! And it will be the FINAL DECISION. The EU referendum will be a ONCE in a generation choice. An IN or OUT referendum. When the British people speak, their voice WILL be respected – NOT ignored. There will NOT BE another renegotiation and another referendum. Think very carefully, because THIS CHOICE CANNOT BE UNDONE. If you think we should leave – and LEAVE MEANS LEAVE – then campaign for that and vote for it..
The idea we could just ignore this vote, not enact it, demand that people vote again so they make the choice the elite want, is positively Trumpian. It is surreally stupid. It would have caused actual civil strife if the Remoaners had prevailed.
Not that it matters any more, but that is just evidence that Cameron was a smarmy grandstanding creep. He had no authority to say that, it is completely at odds with the law and a complete denial of the doctrine of parliamentary SOVRANTEE.
Yawn
OK perhaps
But the fact is he said it, many times, and the government repeated it in a letter sent to EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE REALM
How can you walk back from that? You can't. Having another referendum before enacting the first vote, or - paging Jo Swinson - simply REVOKING the first vote, would have been a Guy Fawkes moment. It would have said to every humble British voter (who turned out in unprecedented numbers, remember, and gave LEAVE the biggest vote in our history) "your vote doesn't really count",. "You are just a pleb". "We, the elite, decide. Now go away and vote again until you vote the way we like"
What would that have done to British democracy? Destroyed it, that's what.
I am proud that my country has, finally, and ever-so-reluctantly, honoured its own democratic traditions.
Was Brexit a terrible error? Quite possibly. The jury is out. Was Cameron wrong to call a vote? I think he was, given the shit deal he came back with. But the fact is he did call it, he said it was FINAL, and then we voted this way, and now the arrogant Establishment has been forced to obey the People.
ie The humble voter won and Cameron lost. Even if the humble voter is now slightly choking on her scone-and-jam and thinking "Shit, I didn't vote for THIS"
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
He would still be the PM that lost the Union.
Everyone knows this.
He wouldn't, if it went the PM on whose watch it fell would be what schoolkids learnt. Though if Starmer became PM and allowed indyref2 needing SNP support to stay in power, he would be more likely to win it than Boris.
Never mind Brexit or Scottish independence, there is only one topic of importance at the moment...
Vaccinations - what's the latest?
Good...roughly 285k done yesterday. Over 3 million total.
3.8 million new doses ready for next week. 23 million ready for bottling.
All oldies in care hones should have had their first doses in next few days.
I would hope come end of next week be doing more than 350k+ / day.
As I've said, it's a slow ramp up. Every day, the number vaccinated will increase a little bit as we get better and better. Before you know it, we'll have half a million vaccinated in a day.
I wouldn't be surprised if - sometime in March - we hit the magic million number.
See link below, the push now to hit 500k / day by next week.
500k is more than the entire adult population of Sheffield, which we will be vaccinating every day next week.
any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal
That is not true
And you know it
Christ. You're desperate for a Scots indyref2 so they vote YES so you can blame the break-up of the Union on Brexit.
This is pathological. There are treatments available.
We left the EU as the result of a none binding advisory referendum.
Of all the many many lame-arse arguments that Remoaners trot out, so they can - or could - hope to avoid the biggest democratic vote in British political history, this is the worst.
The government explicitly promised, in a letter sent to EVERYONE, that the vote would be final and decisive. YOUR vote, YOUR choice. ONCE in a generation.
Just to make things clear, the prime minister of the country said the same, in a speech.
"It will be your decision whether we remain in the EU, or whether we leave. It will be the FINAL DECISION. You, the British people, will decide. NOT politicians, NOT PARLIAMENT... Just YOU! And it will be the FINAL DECISION. The EU referendum will be a ONCE in a generation choice. An IN or OUT referendum. When the British people speak, their voice WILL be respected – NOT ignored. There will NOT BE another renegotiation and another referendum. Think very carefully, because THIS CHOICE CANNOT BE UNDONE. If you think we should leave – and LEAVE MEANS LEAVE – then campaign for that and vote for it..
The idea we could just ignore this vote, not enact it, demand that people vote again so they make the choice the elite want, is positively Trumpian. It is surreally stupid. It would have caused actual civil strife if the Remoaners had prevailed.
Not that it matters any more, but that is just evidence that Cameron was a smarmy grandstanding creep. He had no authority to say that, it is completely at odds with the law and a complete denial of the doctrine of parliamentary SOVRANTEE.
Yawn
OK perhaps
But the fact is he said it, many times, and the government repeated it in a letter sent to EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE REALM
How can you walk back from that? You can't. Having another referendum before enacting the first vote, or - paging Jo Swinson - simply REVOKING the first vote, would have been a Guy Fawkes moment. It would have said to every humble British voter (who turned out in unprecedented numbers, remember, and gave LEAVE the biggest vote in our history) "your vote doesn't really count",. "You are just a pleb". "We, the elite, decide. Now go away and vote again until you vote the way we like"
What would that have done to British democracy? Destroyed it, that's what.
I am proud that my country has, finally, and ever-so-reluctantly, honoured its own democratic traditions.
Was Brexit a terrible error? Quite possibly. The jury is out. Was Cameron wrong to call a vote? I think he was, given the shit deal he came back with. But the fact is he did call it, he said it was FINAL, and then we voted this way, and now the arrogant Establishment has been forced to obey the People.
ie The humble voter won and Cameron lost. Even if the humble voter is now slightly choking on her scone-and-jam and thinking "Shit, I didn't vote for THIS"
You can't walk back from it, I agree, which is why if you have any sense you don't say it in the first place.
any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal
That is not true
And you know it
Christ. You're desperate for a Scots indyref2 so they vote YES so you can blame the break-up of the Union on Brexit.
This is pathological. There are treatments available.
We left the EU as the result of a none binding advisory referendum.
Of all the many many lame-arse arguments that Remoaners trot out, so they can - or could - hope to avoid the biggest democratic vote in British political history, this is the worst.
The government explicitly promised, in a letter sent to EVERYONE, that the vote would be final and decisive. YOUR vote, YOUR choice. ONCE in a generation.
Just to make things clear, the prime minister of the country said the same, in a speech.
"It will be your decision whether we remain in the EU, or whether we leave. It will be the FINAL DECISION. You, the British people, will decide. NOT politicians, NOT PARLIAMENT... Just YOU! And it will be the FINAL DECISION. The EU referendum will be a ONCE in a generation choice. An IN or OUT referendum. When the British people speak, their voice WILL be respected – NOT ignored. There will NOT BE another renegotiation and another referendum. Think very carefully, because THIS CHOICE CANNOT BE UNDONE. If you think we should leave – and LEAVE MEANS LEAVE – then campaign for that and vote for it..
The idea we could just ignore this vote, not enact it, demand that people vote again so they make the choice the elite want, is positively Trumpian. It is surreally stupid. It would have caused actual civil strife if the Remoaners had prevailed.
Not that it matters any more, but that is just evidence that Cameron was a smarmy grandstanding creep. He had no authority to say that, it is completely at odds with the law and a complete denial of the doctrine of parliamentary SOVRANTEE.
Yawn
OK perhaps
But the fact is he said it, many times, and the government repeated it in a letter sent to EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE REALM
How can you walk back from that? You can't. Having another referendum before enacting the first vote, or - paging Jo Swinson - simply REVOKING the first vote, would have been a Guy Fawkes moment. It would have said to every humble British voter (who turned out in unprecedented numbers, remember, and gave LEAVE the biggest vote in our history) "your vote doesn't really count",. "You are just a pleb". "We, the elite, decide. Now go away and vote again until you vote the way we like"
What would that have done to British democracy? Destroyed it, that's what.
I am proud that my country has, finally, and ever-so-reluctantly, honoured its own democratic traditions.
Was Brexit a terrible error? Quite possibly. The jury is out. Was Cameron wrong to call a vote? I think he was, given the shit deal he came back with. But the fact is he did call it, he said it was FINAL, and then we voted this way, and now the arrogant Establishment has been forced to obey the People.
ie The humble voter won and Cameron lost. Even if the humble voter is now slightly choking on her scone-and-jam and thinking "Shit, I didn't vote for THIS"
You can't walk back from it, I agree, which is why if you have any sense you don't say it in the first place.
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
Johnson will possibly be Lord North's predecessor, not the man himself. I just hope we handle our independence better than the Brexit clusterfuck. I would prefer to stay in the Union. In a 300 year union you should be able to accept occasional malevolent charlatans. But it looks like that ship is about to sail, if it hasn't left port already. So we should try to do things in a consensual way. I do notice that people denying Scotland's will appear to be entirely south of the border.
"It is not yet known if the shot is linked to the illness."
"Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann’s description, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”
“This is going to be very rare,” said Dr. Spivak, an emeritus professor of medicine. But he added, “It happened and it could happen again.” "
Yep I think it is pretty obvious that it was a reaction to the vaccine. Just as those who are prone to extreme allergic reactions are (for very different medical reasons) having anaphylaxis.
But given the scrutiny these vaccines are under and the fact there are bound to be some rare adverse reactions I think the expert quoted is also right saying this is no reason not to have it. The chances of this happening appear to be vanishingly small.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
I have lost all respect for Tony Young in this pandemic.
There are excellent reasons to oppose lockdowns and restrictions. There is a delicate balance between economic activity, mental health and the risks of the coronavirus to the population as a whole that needs to be considered.
And yes, that requires people to hear both sides of the argument.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
Johnson will possibly be Lord North's predecessor, not the man himself. I just hope we handle our independence better than the Brexit clusterfuck. I would prefer to stay in the Union. In a 300 year union you should be able to accept occasional malevolent charlatans. But it looks like that ship is about to sail, if it hasn't left port already. So we should try to do things in a consensual way. I do notice that people denying Scotland's will appear to be entirely south of the border.
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
And be remembered in history as the coward who broke the Union.
Yes, that's possible, but we know Boris has a history of fathering bastard children then walking away, so I reckon he will do the same with Scottish indy,
Should it happen, he will be the putative father of it, but someone else - Starmer? - will have to change the nappies and sit dolefully in the playground
Never mind Brexit or Scottish independence, there is only one topic of importance at the moment...
Vaccinations - what's the latest?
Good...roughly 285k done yesterday. Over 3 million total.
3.8 million new doses ready for next week. 23 million ready for bottling.
All oldies in care hones should have had their first doses in next few days.
I would hope come end of next week be doing more than 350k+ / day.
As I've said, it's a slow ramp up. Every day, the number vaccinated will increase a little bit as we get better and better. Before you know it, we'll have half a million vaccinated in a day.
I wouldn't be surprised if - sometime in March - we hit the magic million number.
See link below, the push now to hit 500k / day by next week.
500k is more than the entire adult population of Sheffield, which we will be vaccinating every day next week.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
Steve Baker is a tit and his timing is rank rotten but he is ultimately right to make the argument that lockdown cannot be indefinite.
Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives is a very narrow, limited-time coping strategy. It is not a sustainable position for extended periods of time if it has to be regularly repeated.
It's a Good Thing the vaccine roll-out is happening. Hopefully it does the job, by the spring or at worst the summer it's back to more or less normal for more or less everyone, we keep an eye out in the autumn and maybe need to give a relatively small proportion of vulnerable people a new vaccine just before the winter or reintroduce a few limited distancing practices just as a precaution.
But we need, at the back of our minds, to bear in mind the potential for this virus to mutate rapidly and spread rapidly. We need to at least anticipate the potential for scenarios that involve the country putting in a mammoth effort to vaccinate it's entire adult population and then realising much of it was for naught as a new resistant variant. We need to work on a basis that says ultimately at some point lockdown will break down because too much of the population can no longer stomach it for such lengthy periods, no matter what the numbers of cases and deaths are a day.
This involves at least coming up with, and being prepared to try and implement, some other way of living with the virus that does not involve pushing society close to the brink of collapse in order to stave off the collapse of the NHS.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
That's reasonable. There has to be a reasonable middle ground between wanting to lock down when you've got 3 cases and being a crazy covid denier. A place where you can appreciate the severity of the illness but also reasonably make the point that human civilisation cannot indefinitely endure under lockdowns.
As above hopefully the vaccination programme means it's all moot but it'd be naive to not consider the situation where we're just getting to the end of the national programme and realising we need to do it all again because a new variant is on the loose, but also realise that just telling everyone to dedicating their lives to protect the NHS isn't really a strategy.
Over 3 million vaccinated and ramping up fast. We're weeks away from turning the tide on this plague.
To clarify, 2.9 million vaccinations have been provided from December 8th to the end of yesterday - 2.1 million people have received one dose of vaccine, 400,000 people have received two doses of vaccine.
Yesterday, 248,000 vaccinations were administered - 240,000 were first vaccinations and 8,000 or so second vaccinations.
Er...
Even the out of date government website is showing 2,639,309 first dose + 428,232 second dose = 3,067,541 total by 12th January.
The figure for yesterday seems to be 278,000 nationally.
The point is that isn't 3 million people vaccinated - 428,000 have had both doses of vaccine and 2.2 million have had a single dose so it's 2.6 million who have actually been vaccinated.
As we have decided (apparently), the Pfizer vaccine doesn't need to be administered twice within three weeks, the figures of those deemed to have been fully vaccinated will go up.
I must admit I thought the other vaccines achieved maximum efficacy after two vaccinations but apparently I was either a) wrong or b) those manufacturing the vaccine are wrong or c) it's been deemed "better" to get some immunity for as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
I am still confused, however.
Does anyone know for long these vaccinations will bestow immunity? The flu vaccination is administered every year so will we have to go through the same with the Covid-19 vaccination?
I imagine in time the vaccines will be improved to provide longer-lasting and more effective immunity with a single vaccination which is all to the good so perhaps the next vaccination will provide two or three years protection.
I'm also wondering if Covid-19 will become the dominant virus strain in the future supplanting older viruses.
Technically we will have 3 million people vaccinated by now, just the data isn't out yet.
~2.63 million by the 11th, plus ~270k on the 12th means ~2.9 million by the end of the 12th.
So once 100k were vaccinated today, which would have been done by lunchtime probably, that would have hit the 3 million mark.
The booster shot will still be given but later to boost immunity but getting everyone vaccinated once will save far more lives than vaccinating half as many people plus giving them a booster will do.
As for how often, the answer seems to be "we don't know yet" but if boosters are needed again in the winter it ought to be relatively easy to arrange that like the flu vaccine.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
He would still be the PM that lost the Union.
Everyone knows this.
He wouldn't, if it went the PM on whose watch it fell would be what schoolkids learnt. Though if Starmer became PM and allowed indyref2 needing SNP support to stay in power, he would be more likely to win it than Boris.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
Johnson will possibly be Lord North's predecessor, not the man himself. I just hope we handle our independence better than the Brexit clusterfuck. I would prefer to stay in the Union. In a 300 year union you should be able to accept occasional malevolent charlatans. But it looks like that ship is about to sail, if it hasn't left port already. So we should try to do things in a consensual way. I do notice that people denying Scotland's will appear to be entirely south of the border.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
I have lost all respect for Tony Young in this pandemic.
There are excellent reasons to oppose lockdowns and restrictions. There is a delicate balance between economic activity, mental health and the risks of the coronavirus to the population as a whole that needs to be considered.
And yes, that requires people to hear both sides of the argument.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
The revelation here is that..... you had respect for Toby Young?!
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
Possibly by taking money out of the equation?
You can vote on what you want to do, but if you do then the executive and legislature will need to create a budget to pay for it.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
I have lost all respect for Tony Young in this pandemic.
There are excellent reasons to oppose lockdowns and restrictions. There is a delicate balance between economic activity, mental health and the risks of the coronavirus to the population as a whole that needs to be considered.
And yes, that requires people to hear both sides of the argument.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
The revelation here is that..... you had respect for Toby Young?!
Come now, be sympathetic; As the Good Book says, "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
Over 3 million vaccinated and ramping up fast. We're weeks away from turning the tide on this plague.
To clarify, 2.9 million vaccinations have been provided from December 8th to the end of yesterday - 2.1 million people have received one dose of vaccine, 400,000 people have received two doses of vaccine.
Yesterday, 248,000 vaccinations were administered - 240,000 were first vaccinations and 8,000 or so second vaccinations.
Er...
Even the out of date government website is showing 2,639,309 first dose + 428,232 second dose = 3,067,541 total by 12th January.
The figure for yesterday seems to be 278,000 nationally.
The point is that isn't 3 million people vaccinated - 428,000 have had both doses of vaccine and 2.2 million have had a single dose so it's 2.6 million who have actually been vaccinated.
As we have decided (apparently), the Pfizer vaccine doesn't need to be administered twice within three weeks, the figures of those deemed to have been fully vaccinated will go up.
I must admit I thought the other vaccines achieved maximum efficacy after two vaccinations but apparently I was either a) wrong or b) those manufacturing the vaccine are wrong or c) it's been deemed "better" to get some immunity for as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
I am still confused, however.
Does anyone know for long these vaccinations will bestow immunity? The flu vaccination is administered every year so will we have to go through the same with the Covid-19 vaccination?
I imagine in time the vaccines will be improved to provide longer-lasting and more effective immunity with a single vaccination which is all to the good so perhaps the next vaccination will provide two or three years protection.
I'm also wondering if Covid-19 will become the dominant virus strain in the future supplanting older viruses.
One thing that would be useful when making international comparisons would be to not just report those who have started a course, but also those who have completed it.
We really don't know how well antibodies last with a single dose of Pfizer or Moderna, as that stusdy
One interesting quirk of the Russian Flu of 1892, was that the Spanish Flu had particularly high mortality for 28 year olds, those who were exposed to the Russian Flu about the time of their birth. There is a plausible biological premise to this.
Well, personally I was a bit undecided about whether a second impeachment was the best way to go. But now I've decided: if Farage is against it, I'm for it.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
I don't care very much about what happens to Trump himself but the politics of it are more interesting.
The Democrats have reasoned they can open a clear fissure in the GOP between those who support Trump (and by inference are supporting those who attacked the Capitol last week) and those who now oppose the President.
Trump himself in his address tried frantically to sound statesmanlike (decent speech writer) but it's impossible to forget how he has consistently and persistently incited a response from his supporters before and since the election.
The problem for the Democrats is whether Biden's first 100 days finish up being more about Trump than about Biden - this is clever politics from McConnell who knows full well there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get Trump impeached but it wastes Biden's political capital for the early days of his administration to be mired in an impeachment.
That's the mistake about this process - not because it's a bad idea but but it's bad politics.
Contrary view: I don't agree with Steve Baker on this (I think he's only read the tabloid headline of what Jonathan Van-Tam said, and not the very nuanced detail) but I'm glad that an opposing argument is being put up from the libertarian right by him, and the likes of Toby Young, on this. Even if it is a bit barking.
SAGE are ultra-conservative in their risk appetite and Boris Johnson is lazy.
Without this political pressure Boris might not ask the balanced questions and simply let too many measures drift on the statue books for too long, blind to the economic and political harm they are doing. Also it's good to have all the evidence tested from all angles. If all the libertarian right can come out with is easily dismissed claims then we know it's robust and just born of frustration but that tells us something too.
So like a barrister defending a hopeless case it's a necessary part of the system.
I don't think anybody at all objects to an opposing argument being put forward in response to restrictions. And I agree that the government should be held accountable through alternative arguments.
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
I have lost all respect for Tony Young in this pandemic.
There are excellent reasons to oppose lockdowns and restrictions. There is a delicate balance between economic activity, mental health and the risks of the coronavirus to the population as a whole that needs to be considered.
And yes, that requires people to hear both sides of the argument.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
Coincidentally, James Delingpole and Toby Young both featured in the drama-documentary, When Boris Met Dave.
The Boris paradox for the Sturge is every day he is PM, support for Indy remains, but she won't get an IndyRef whilst he remains.
BoZo can't stop her holding a referendum with the same legal weight as the Brexit vote.
Of course he can, any referendum without UK government and Westminster consent would be illegal and irrelevant as Madrid proved when it ignored the illegal referendum held by the Catalan government
I am not sure you are correct.
Don't forget the Brexit vote was advisory rather than binding.
I would imagine Nippy can do pretty much as she likes regarding plebiscite arrangements. Where she is hamstrung is that she can't legally declare UDI on the result.
s30 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifically reserves matters affecting the Union to be decided by Westminster and Westminster's approval alone is required for such matters.
No one is denying that. If Nippy calls a Referendum and wins, Johnson is perfectly entitled to reject it. However it would look bad!
Boris would not give a shit, it would look far worse for him if he allowed a referendum that risked him being the PM who lost the Union and he only has 6 Scottish MPs anyway.
He will be the PM who lost the Union. No hiding place.
Which is why he will refuse a vote. Until he departs Number 10. Everyone knows this.
The worst that can happen, as a result of this, is a constitutional crisis.... which he will happily hand over to his successor
Johnson will possibly be Lord North's predecessor, not the man himself. I just hope we handle our independence better than the Brexit clusterfuck. I would prefer to stay in the Union. In a 300 year union you should be able to accept occasional malevolent charlatans. But it looks like that ship is about to sail, if it hasn't left port already. So we should try to do things in a consensual way. I do notice that people denying Scotland's will appear to be entirely south of the border.
There is a difference between saying, "I don't agree with another referendum, I think it's divisive and unnecessary and I will argue against it", and saying, "It doesn't matter what people in Scotland think. There will be no referendum because I will not allow one." At the moment, Douglas Ross and presumably Jackie Baillie are making the first argument.
Roll forward to the summer and nationalist parties gain a massive win on an independence platform. Will Ross and Baillie say, "No you can't have your referendum." or will they say, "The people of Scotland have spoken. We will argue for No at the referendum." I guess Ross will probably say, "no way" - so you are right. Labour, I think, may say, "we need to argue this one" - not sure what they will do. The point is, unionists, already in a minority, are split.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
The problem for the Democrats is whether Biden's first 100 days finish up being more about Trump than about Biden - this is clever politics from McConnell who knows full well there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get Trump impeached but it wastes Biden's political capital for the early days of his administration to be mired in an impeachment.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Depressingly, we forget Boris Johnson has openly admitted he's a Thatcherite and he wants "Thatcherism on steroids" and reducing workers' rights is right out of the Thatcher playbook.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Of course it is. I am stupefied by apparently intelligent people on here who deny it.
Other countries will demand it for travel. Most if not all. Given how much the Brits like to go on hols that means most of us will need it within a year.
Read across for many jobs. Customers will want the reassurance. And this is the way gyms could reopen. And so forth.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as etheir legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
Swiss people are intelligent, well educated and focus on the question in hand. Californians are mostly stoned.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Depressingly, we forget Boris Johnson has openly admitted he's a Thatcherite and he wants "Thatcherism on steroids" and reducing workers' rights is right out of the Thatcher playbook.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
I believe we're conducting a global trial of that last idea right now. Results so far are mixed.
The problem for the Democrats is whether Biden's first 100 days finish up being more about Trump than about Biden - this is clever politics from McConnell who knows full well there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get Trump impeached but it wastes Biden's political capital for the early days of his administration to be mired in an impeachment.
McConnell isn't in control any more
I'm not sure of that, there are currently 99 Senators with a Republican majority of 50-49. Warnock might take his oath tomorrow so that would make it 50-50 with VP Harris's casting vote giving the Democrats a majority.
Does not the Majority Leader control the business of the Senate and having pushed the impeachment hearing back until after the inauguration, it means, as I've said, Biden's first period in office is all about his predecessor.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
Possibly by taking money out of the equation?
You can vote on what you want to do, but if you do then the executive and legislature will need to create a budget to pay for it.
That really shouldnt be what we do if we did swiss referendums. Part of determining if we do something should include looking at the cost of doing it.
For example free degree courses for all that want them sounds good, if it costs 1% on the basic tax rate many would think that reasonable , if however it meant adding 50% to the basic tax rate you will find a lot more people saying no.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Depressingly, we forget Boris Johnson has openly admitted he's a Thatcherite and he wants "Thatcherism on steroids" and reducing workers' rights is right out of the Thatcher playbook.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
Boris is probably mixing up steroids with his drug of choice, Viagra.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
No, a Sauna is dry heat. It is the sweat evaporating and requiring the latent heat of evaporation that makes such above body temperatures tolerable, even enjoyable.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
You're right about that. There is still the efflorescence.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Of course it is. I am stupefied by apparently intelligent people on here who deny it.
Other countries will demand it for travel. Most if not all. Given how much the Brits like to go on hols that means most of us will need it within a year.
Read across for many jobs. Customers will want the reassurance. And this is the way gyms could reopen. And so forth.
It is coming, as an app.
"Pimlico Plumbers to make workers get vaccinations"
Never mind Brexit or Scottish independence, there is only one topic of importance at the moment...
Vaccinations - what's the latest?
Good...roughly 285k done yesterday. Over 3 million total.
3.8 million new doses ready for next week. 23 million ready for bottling.
All oldies in care hones should have had their first doses in next few days.
I would hope come end of next week be doing more than 350k+ / day.
As I've said, it's a slow ramp up. Every day, the number vaccinated will increase a little bit as we get better and better. Before you know it, we'll have half a million vaccinated in a day.
I wouldn't be surprised if - sometime in March - we hit the magic million number.
See link below, the push now to hit 500k / day by next week.
500k is more than the entire adult population of Sheffield, which we will be vaccinating every day next week.
Why do we have to vaccinate the population of Sheffield every day next week? Seems a bit wasteful.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Of course it is. I am stupefied by apparently intelligent people on here who deny it.
Other countries will demand it for travel. Most if not all. Given how much the Brits like to go on hols that means most of us will need it within a year.
Read across for many jobs. Customers will want the reassurance. And this is the way gyms could reopen. And so forth.
It is coming, as an app.
"Pimlico Plumbers to make workers get vaccinations"
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Depressingly, we forget Boris Johnson has openly admitted he's a Thatcherite and he wants "Thatcherism on steroids" and reducing workers' rights is right out of the Thatcher playbook.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
I believe we're conducting a global trial of that last idea right now. Results so far are mixed.
Canning Town Station at 7am this morning would suggest otherwise. A lot of people are still travelling to work especially as construction sites remain open and if a couple of tube services are cancelled due to staff shortages, social distancing quickly goes out the window and in the absence of anyone enforcing the legal requirement to wear masks on public transport, those who choose not to obey he law can get away with it.
The problem for the Democrats is whether Biden's first 100 days finish up being more about Trump than about Biden - this is clever politics from McConnell who knows full well there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get Trump impeached but it wastes Biden's political capital for the early days of his administration to be mired in an impeachment.
McConnell isn't in control any more
I'm not sure of that, there are currently 99 Senators with a Republican majority of 50-49. Warnock might take his oath tomorrow so that would make it 50-50 with VP Harris's casting vote giving the Democrats a majority.
Does not the Majority Leader control the business of the Senate and having pushed the impeachment hearing back until after the inauguration, it means, as I've said, Biden's first period in office is all about his predecessor.
That doesn't matter. The most important business right now is showing that American democracy will chew up and spit out wannabe dictators. If it takes a few weeks before everything else starts, shrug.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
The rule in California is that if more than a certain number of people sign up for a ballot up proposition, then it's on the ballot. You will sometimes have dumb ones (such as the one that prevented power companies from raising money from public markets without two thirds of residents - *note* not actual votes cast, but residents - to agree, and, and which resulted in the bankruptcy of various electricity companies). And you sometimes have smart ones (such as the plan to abolish time changes, and bring California and Arizona in sync, which was vetoed by President Trump because he hated California.)
You will have multiple referendum on the same day. So, people will sign up for, on the same day, mutually contradictory things.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
No, a Sauna is dry heat. It is the sweat evaporating and requiring the latent heat of evaporation that makes such above body temperatures tolerable, even enjoyable.
In that case my bad. I have never been in one as I don't like the heat.
But... why do you see people sprinkle water on hot stones in a sauna if not to make the atmosphere humid. And why do we use the term "it's like a sauna in here" to describe hot and humid environments?
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
No, a Sauna is dry heat. It is the sweat evaporating and requiring the latent heat of evaporation that makes such above body temperatures tolerable, even enjoyable.
It's dry if you refrain from throwing hot water on the hot stones. But some (most) people enjoy the stinging sensation of the steam along with the beating with birch twigs.
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Of course it is. I am stupefied by apparently intelligent people on here who deny it.
Other countries will demand it for travel. Most if not all. Given how much the Brits like to go on hols that means most of us will need it within a year.
Read across for many jobs. Customers will want the reassurance. And this is the way gyms could reopen. And so forth.
It is coming, as an app.
"Pimlico Plumbers to make workers get vaccinations"
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
Depressingly, we forget Boris Johnson has openly admitted he's a Thatcherite and he wants "Thatcherism on steroids" and reducing workers' rights is right out of the Thatcher playbook.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
Absolutely spot on. What's the point of improved technology, automation of tasks and so on if it just results in people working just as long, if not longer, than previously? No political party is really any good at developing policies to improve the balance between work and other pursuits.
And I'm not sure that reducing workers' rights will contribute much to the governments' levelling up ambitions.
One of the negative effects of Brexit is giving extra salience to people who really should STFU now, as their legal/constitutional/academic expertise was genuine when it came to Brexit, but is now irrelevant
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
I thought the point about saunas is that the sweat doesn't evaporate?
The steam make you sweat more. But it does evaporate leaving a salty residue (lick your arms to test).
Er... Yes, I had worked that out in 60 odd years.
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
No, a Sauna is dry heat. It is the sweat evaporating and requiring the latent heat of evaporation that makes such above body temperatures tolerable, even enjoyable.
In that case my bad. I have never been in one as I don't like the heat.
But... why do you see people sprinkle water on hot stones in a sauna if not to make the atmosphere humid. And why do we use the term "it's like a sauna in here" to describe hot and humid environments?
By throwing water on the stove, it raises the humidity, and the sensation of heat.
Most saunas are equipped with a thermometer, and a hygrometer to measure humidity. I love having a proper sauna, but British ones are generally too tepid. The alternating cold and heat is very relaxing.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
The rule in California is that if more than a certain number of people sign up for a ballot up proposition, then it's on the ballot. You will sometimes have dumb ones (such as the one that prevented power companies from raising money from public markets without two thirds of residents - *note* not actual votes cast, but residents - to agree, and, and which resulted in the bankruptcy of various electricity companies). And you sometimes have smart ones (such as the plan to abolish time changes, and bring California and Arizona in sync, which was vetoed by President Trump because he hated California.)
You will have multiple referendum on the same day. So, people will sign up for, on the same day, mutually contradictory things.
How do you deal with that?
You change the rules of how to run referendums, any that involve the government spending money have to be costed at the tax bill included as part of the referendum and these overrule the no tax rises referendums.
However I thought we were talking more about hypothetically we could do it without running into the californian problem. Personally I think every new bill bought in should have the same this is how much it will cost and how we will pay for it.
We might find some of the things that people are really keen on aren't so popular when they have a price attached
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
The rule in California is that if more than a certain number of people sign up for a ballot up proposition, then it's on the ballot. You will sometimes have dumb ones (such as the one that prevented power companies from raising money from public markets without two thirds of residents - *note* not actual votes cast, but residents - to agree, and, and which resulted in the bankruptcy of various electricity companies). And you sometimes have smart ones (such as the plan to abolish time changes, and bring California and Arizona in sync, which was vetoed by President Trump because he hated California.)
You will have multiple referendum on the same day. So, people will sign up for, on the same day, mutually contradictory things.
How do you deal with that?
You change the rules of how to run referendums, any that involve the government spending money have to be costed at the tax bill included as part of the referendum and these overrule the no tax rises referendums.
However I thought we were talking more about hypothetically we could do it without running into the californian problem. Personally I think every new bill bought in should have the same this is how much it will cost and how we will pay for it.
We might find some of the things that people are really keen on aren't so popular when they have a price attached
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. The only issue is that you are handing an awful lot of power to the people who tell you what the consequences of proposal is.
The government are really pushing...it seems like a deliberate strategy to keep introducing these new stretch targets. I like it. If only they did this with other things.
That's what we need to be aiming for. We cannot have any meaningful 'return to normality' until all over 50s plus those younger with significant health problems have been vaccinated.
Advisory referendums are legal. As demonstrated in 2016.
If Scotland holds such a referendum, and votes for Independence, we then get to enjoy English Tories telling us why the opinion of voters to leave can be discarded and ignored.
Should be a laugh.
But an advisory referendum boycotted by the pro-Union parties which produces a 75% - 80% Yes vote on a 45% turnout will carry little weight at all.
Even if the pro-Union parties boycott it, how confident are you that pro-Union *voters* will boycott it in such significant numbers?
What’s stopping UK nations having continual referendums? Presumably we can wake up tomorrow and Scotland can hold a referendum on rejoining the EU. Or Wales on employment law. Or Northern Ireland on rejecting the NI brexit protocol. All fine, because advisory etc.
Where’s the end point here?
Ideally a situation like Switzerland who do have regular referendums accommodated - and in many cases mandated - by the constitution.
Switzerland does referendums well; California does them badly.
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
How about
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
The rule in California is that if more than a certain number of people sign up for a ballot up proposition, then it's on the ballot. You will sometimes have dumb ones (such as the one that prevented power companies from raising money from public markets without two thirds of residents - *note* not actual votes cast, but residents - to agree, and, and which resulted in the bankruptcy of various electricity companies). And you sometimes have smart ones (such as the plan to abolish time changes, and bring California and Arizona in sync, which was vetoed by President Trump because he hated California.)
You will have multiple referendum on the same day. So, people will sign up for, on the same day, mutually contradictory things.
How do you deal with that?
You change the rules of how to run referendums, any that involve the government spending money have to be costed at the tax bill included as part of the referendum and these overrule the no tax rises referendums.
However I thought we were talking more about hypothetically we could do it without running into the californian problem. Personally I think every new bill bought in should have the same this is how much it will cost and how we will pay for it.
We might find some of the things that people are really keen on aren't so popular when they have a price attached
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. The only issue is that you are handing an awful lot of power to the people who tell you what the consequences of proposal is.
You also add in a further referendum then after a year of the new thing running which says....x was forecast to cost y, in practise it costs z. Do you want to keep x.
Gives people time to see how x works out and if they think it worth the true cost. If second passes now z is the tax increase
Oh wow, Brexit turns out to be all about tearing up workers' rights. Who could have predicted that?
Why should workers have rights anyway? Just do your work and shut up. The robots are coming. You are lucky to have a job at all. Frankly
I'll be surprised if the Government enacts these measures as advertised but the thing about Brexit is that a Tory Government could deregulate things like this and then a Labour government come back in two-three years later and put them straight back in again, or even strengthen them further.
Comments
And by badly I mean that Californians often require Executive to do contradictory things: spend more on education... don't raise taxes... run a balanced budget...
How do you design a referendum system, so you don't get the population voting to simultaneously lower taxes, raise spending, and run a balanced budget?
Everyone knows this.
Personally, I'm expecting the same with covid going forward.
No way is Boris going to fit in that fridge.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1348530759611650049?s=09
Once seen, cannot be unseen...
What people like me object to is some on the libertarian right, like Toby Young, seeking to further that argument through, at best, using misleading data and, quite frequently, downright lying. In seeking to deny the scale of the health problem facing us they end up with an argument that flies in the face of the evidence. Perhaps if they used proper statistical and scientific evidence we may listen to them more. "Lockdowns don't work" and "excess deaths during this pandemic are nothing unusual" really don't cut it. They have been proved wrong time and time again since March.
Wait... You follow Dan Snow!?
OK perhaps
But the fact is he said it, many times, and the government repeated it in a letter sent to EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE REALM
How can you walk back from that? You can't. Having another referendum before enacting the first vote, or - paging Jo Swinson - simply REVOKING the first vote, would have been a Guy Fawkes moment. It would have said to every humble British voter (who turned out in unprecedented numbers, remember, and gave LEAVE the biggest vote in our history) "your vote doesn't really count",. "You are just a pleb". "We, the elite, decide. Now go away and vote again until you vote the way we like"
What would that have done to British democracy? Destroyed it, that's what.
I am proud that my country has, finally, and ever-so-reluctantly, honoured its own democratic traditions.
Was Brexit a terrible error? Quite possibly. The jury is out. Was Cameron wrong to call a vote? I think he was, given the shit deal he came back with. But the fact is he did call it, he said it was FINAL, and then we voted this way, and now the arrogant Establishment has been forced to obey the People.
ie The humble voter won and Cameron lost. Even if the humble voter is now slightly choking on her scone-and-jam and thinking "Shit, I didn't vote for THIS"
Inevitably some are going to die to in the subsequent weeks.
Boris would be the PM of Brexit still.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1349833769935663108?s=20
But given the scrutiny these vaccines are under and the fact there are bound to be some rare adverse reactions I think the expert quoted is also right saying this is no reason not to have it. The chances of this happening appear to be vanishingly small.
There are excellent reasons to oppose lockdowns and restrictions. There is a delicate balance between economic activity, mental health and the risks of the coronavirus to the population as a whole that needs to be considered.
And yes, that requires people to hear both sides of the argument.
But Toby chooses to twist the truth. He's so wedded to his point of view, he actively blocks those people on Twitter who politely correct him on matters of fact. Even when he knows data is incorrect, he still chooses to highlight it.
He has, sadly, gone completely bonkers. (See, also, Delingpole, James.)
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18946855.douglas-ross-out-trumping-trump-indyref2-boycott-threat/
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/jackie-baillie-scottish-labour-must-oppose-independence-and-indyref2-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18880342.scottish-labour--will-oppose-indyref2-2026/
Should it happen, he will be the putative father of it, but someone else - Starmer? - will have to change the nappies and sit dolefully in the playground
Can I be vaccinated next week please?
Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives is a very narrow, limited-time coping strategy. It is not a sustainable position for extended periods of time if it has to be regularly repeated.
It's a Good Thing the vaccine roll-out is happening. Hopefully it does the job, by the spring or at worst the summer it's back to more or less normal for more or less everyone, we keep an eye out in the autumn and maybe need to give a relatively small proportion of vulnerable people a new vaccine just before the winter or reintroduce a few limited distancing practices just as a precaution.
But we need, at the back of our minds, to bear in mind the potential for this virus to mutate rapidly and spread rapidly. We need to at least anticipate the potential for scenarios that involve the country putting in a mammoth effort to vaccinate it's entire adult population and then realising much of it was for naught as a new resistant variant. We need to work on a basis that says ultimately at some point lockdown will break down because too much of the population can no longer stomach it for such lengthy periods, no matter what the numbers of cases and deaths are a day.
This involves at least coming up with, and being prepared to try and implement, some other way of living with the virus that does not involve pushing society close to the brink of collapse in order to stave off the collapse of the NHS.
That's reasonable. There has to be a reasonable middle ground between wanting to lock down when you've got 3 cases and being a crazy covid denier. A place where you can appreciate the severity of the illness but also reasonably make the point that human civilisation cannot indefinitely endure under lockdowns.
As above hopefully the vaccination programme means it's all moot but it'd be naive to not consider the situation where we're just getting to the end of the national programme and realising we need to do it all again because a new variant is on the loose, but also realise that just telling everyone to dedicating their lives to protect the NHS isn't really a strategy.
~2.63 million by the 11th, plus ~270k on the 12th means ~2.9 million by the end of the 12th.
So once 100k were vaccinated today, which would have been done by lunchtime probably, that would have hit the 3 million mark.
The booster shot will still be given but later to boost immunity but getting everyone vaccinated once will save far more lives than vaccinating half as many people plus giving them a booster will do.
As for how often, the answer seems to be "we don't know yet" but if boosters are needed again in the winter it ought to be relatively easy to arrange that like the flu vaccine.
Henig is one. Gina Miller is another. Maugham and the rest. I predict these people will slowly evaporate, as time goes on, like sweat in a EU certified Finnish sauna
Good heavens - Mr Ross and presumabkly you would boycott a referendum that was legal *even by his and your standards*?
Tory Person, don't you have any respect for the constitution and the rule of Parliament and law?!
You can vote on what you want to do, but if you do then the executive and legislature will need to create a budget to pay for it.
We really don't know how well antibodies last with a single dose of Pfizer or Moderna, as that stusdy One interesting quirk of the Russian Flu of 1892, was that the Spanish Flu had particularly high mortality for 28 year olds, those who were exposed to the Russian Flu about the time of their birth. There is a plausible biological premise to this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/
It's coming. At least once we can start to go on holiday again we won't be bumping into anti-vaxxers.
We've already seen several million in this country without anything like this reported yet.
Compared to one in a hundred dying from the plague, its easy maths.
I don't care very much about what happens to Trump himself but the politics of it are more interesting.
The Democrats have reasoned they can open a clear fissure in the GOP between those who support Trump (and by inference are supporting those who attacked the Capitol last week) and those who now oppose the President.
Trump himself in his address tried frantically to sound statesmanlike (decent speech writer) but it's impossible to forget how he has consistently and persistently incited a response from his supporters before and since the election.
The problem for the Democrats is whether Biden's first 100 days finish up being more about Trump than about Biden - this is clever politics from McConnell who knows full well there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get Trump impeached but it wastes Biden's political capital for the early days of his administration to be mired in an impeachment.
That's the mistake about this process - not because it's a bad idea but but it's bad politics.
Roll forward to the summer and nationalist parties gain a massive win on an independence platform. Will Ross and Baillie say, "No you can't have your referendum." or will they say, "The people of Scotland have spoken. We will argue for No at the referendum." I guess Ross will probably say, "no way" - so you are right. Labour, I think, may say, "we need to argue this one" - not sure what they will do. The point is, unionists, already in a minority, are split.
It will of course be dressed up in terms of giving people more choice about when they work and how many hours they work (not that many have any kind of choice) and it will also be all about setting businesses free from red tape but we all know the absurd long hours culture that proliferates here and the pressures put on so many employees to work extra hours.
It should be the goal in the 21st century for people to be working less and having more time to devote to other pursuits.
Other countries will demand it for travel. Most if not all. Given how much the Brits like to go on hols that means most of us will need it within a year.
Read across for many jobs. Customers will want the reassurance. And this is the way gyms could reopen. And so forth.
It is coming, as an app.
Shall we do x, doing x will require the basic rate of income tax to go up by 1%
Tell people the cost of what the referendum is about and you then have a mandate to do both x and raise tax to pay for it.
Doesn't seem like rocket science
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1349840329512521728?s=19
But 100% humidity (as in a sauna) surpresses the evaporation, hence the sweat just drips off you rather than evaporates.
Does not the Majority Leader control the business of the Senate and having pushed the impeachment hearing back until after the inauguration, it means, as I've said, Biden's first period in office is all about his predecessor.
For example free degree courses for all that want them sounds good, if it costs 1% on the basic tax rate many would think that reasonable , if however it meant adding 50% to the basic tax rate you will find a lot more people saying no.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55654229
Seems Mr Mullins has been in the back of an Albanian taxi drivers cab.
You will have multiple referendum on the same day. So, people will sign up for, on the same day, mutually contradictory things.
How do you deal with that?
But... why do you see people sprinkle water on hot stones in a sauna if not to make the atmosphere humid. And why do we use the term "it's like a sauna in here" to describe hot and humid environments?
And I'm not sure that reducing workers' rights will contribute much to the governments' levelling up ambitions.
https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/1349843604488007686?s=21
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1349844672722698241
Most saunas are equipped with a thermometer, and a hygrometer to measure humidity. I love having a proper sauna, but British ones are generally too tepid. The alternating cold and heat is very relaxing.
However I thought we were talking more about hypothetically we could do it without running into the californian problem. Personally I think every new bill bought in should have the same this is how much it will cost and how we will pay for it.
We might find some of the things that people are really keen on aren't so popular when they have a price attached
SoCal is Hollywood, not tech,
Northern California is Silicon Valley and big tech and San Francisco. They are doing a lot better than we are.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1349690629077532674?s=21
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1349845527236587520/photo/1
Gives people time to see how x works out and if they think it worth the true cost. If second passes now z is the tax increase
Thats kind of the point.