Although "herd immunity" doesn't have to be the only way out. The other is a less dangerous endemic virus.
How do we arrange that? SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have any selection advantage in becoming less fatal, unlike many other viruses. The lengthy presymptomatic phase scuppers that.
Instead, its route towards evolutionary advantage for itself lies down the twin routes of higher transmissibility and immune escape, so those are the directions down which lie the mutations we should expect. And, for that matter, we have already seen progress that way in current mutations.
Activists staging an underground protest in central London say an eviction team is in the process of forcing them out. HS2 Rebellion, who are camped out at Euston Square Gardens, say the team is burrowing a vertical tunnel causing crumbs of earth to fall around them.
One protester said: "All night we've had rocks falling down onto our head through the gaps.
"They've kept us awake all night for hours and hours and hours to keep us awake and try and coax us out of the hole.
"All of the dirt is still coming down in my sleeves. It's not the most pleasant of experiences, it's pretty nasty to be fair."
Comparing Starmer to Piers Morgan is unfair. If anyone had the media time and access that Piers has they could sell the silky skills of Gavin Williamson. A better comparison is Marcus Rashford. One person with nothing other than his back story his cause and his character is running rings round everyone.
A lesson there for Starmer. Make your own weather. Find an issue that resonates and persuade people that you really believe in it whether it's instantly popular or not.
God knows he's got plenty to go at.
I have a weird pseudo-respect for Piers Morgan - everyone seems to hate him, but he seems to have managed to find niches to be successful at regardless.
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
What lawyer would want to be televised running that shitshow? No publicity is worth that. Trump get acquitted but the defence he runs is going to to have...interesting...effects upon his liability in his other local difficulties.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
Activists staging an underground protest in central London say an eviction team is in the process of forcing them out. HS2 Rebellion, who are camped out at Euston Square Gardens, say the team is burrowing a vertical tunnel causing crumbs of earth to fall around them.
One protester said: "All night we've had rocks falling down onto our head through the gaps.
"They've kept us awake all night for hours and hours and hours to keep us awake and try and coax us out of the hole.
"All of the dirt is still coming down in my sleeves. It's not the most pleasant of experiences, it's pretty nasty to be fair."
I think my dad had the best idea. Starve them out.
It would be tragic if there was a cave in. Tragic.
From a legal point of view one wonders if they are responsible for their own actions - ie are as children under the HASAWA 1974 or whatever has replaced it. In which case all work on the site has to stop, on H&S grounds. Edit: because the liability of the contractors is total.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
I wondered how it would compare to the Ugandan Asians. On checking, there were 27K or so UAs who came to the UK.
On topic, one of Starmer's bigger problems is the quality of his cabinet. Of his frontbench, Miliband is the only real big hitter, and I suspect large parts of the electorate will remember him well enough to not respond well to him. Rayner is interesting, but probably not well calibrated to appeal to Middle England, and Thornberry is good but rather tainted by past associations.
Of the rest, Lammy, Nandy, Ashworth and Rachel Reeves are lightweights, and Dodds seems MIA. I had to Google who the shadow Home Sec is, and I'm still not much the wiser.
All of which is to say that Starmer is likely to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in any election campaign himself, and I don't think he has the personality to do so. Johnson would likely crush him, and I think he would also have a very hard time against Sunak, who is currently - although things can change very quickly - probably the Conservatives' biggest asset.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
Isn't it the case that they can travel on other passports, they just need the BNO status for when they arrive here? And the problem is the Chinese may start ratcheting up measures against BNO holders?
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
But then we get into very controversial arguments about lives v life.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
But then we get into very controversial arguments about lives v life.
So we do, but IIRC the opposition at Holyrood weren't getting involved in any of those subtleties when it came to care home death figures, and it is a minority administration.
“You know you have fucked up on an epic scale when Sinn Féin, the DUP and the Archbishop of Canterbury are united in condemning you,” an EU source conceded of the extraordinary events that soon transpired.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
They still have their HK passports.
I think the broader point is to refuse to recognise the right of BNO passport holders to come here in the first place. If all they have left are (effectively) Chinese issued travel documents then clearly the Chinese can simply revoke them or refuse permission for them to be used.
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
What lawyer would want to be televised running that shitshow? No publicity is worth that. Trump get acquitted but the defence he runs is going to to have...interesting...effects upon his liability in his other local difficulties.
I still don't get why he'd want his lawyers to focus on alleged election fraud - that only matters if he wants to say the riot was understandable or justified. Otherwise the truth or not (it's not) of those allegations is irrelevant to whether he incited the crowd to storm Congress.
Let him speak between now and them, or let him decide strategies and he might somehow get a conviction even though the Senators are desperate to not do so.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
But he won. In London. Twice. As a Tory. And then he won the Brexit referendum against the entire establishment. And then he won the leadership of the Tories. And then he won an election with an 80 seat majority, the largest Tory win since 1987. That's my evidence, what's yours?
We get excited and contemptuous that he ran away from Andrew Neill. The general public couldn't give a toss.
But context matters here. Yes he did win London twice - but the Tories managed to win the GLC twice under Plummer in 1967 & 1970 - and again under Cutler in 1977. In 2012 Johnson only scraped in against a weak, discredited opponent and suffered a significant adverse swing -and would have lost to a stronger candidate such as Jowell. How would he have fared against Starmer in 2019? Moreover, he was a new face in 2019 - that novelty factor will be missing next time.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
But then we get into very controversial arguments about lives v life.
So we do, but IIRC the opposition at Holyrood weren't getting involved in any of those subtleties when it came to care home death figures, and it is a minority administration.
Fair enough. I don't follow Scottish politics all that closely, but that's a good example of oppositions needing to think carefully before criticizing.
500m contract....I can hear some agents phones ringing off the hook already from their clients wanting to know why they didn't get them all these add-ons.
The main political problem is in relations with the Chinese. They've already stopped recognising the BNO passport as valid, these people will be unable to escape as things currently stand.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
The challenge for the Chinese authorities will be to get rid of any undesirables while clinging on to everyone else. Their control of criminal records might help. And they could pass a law requiring anyone with a degree to repay the cost of their education but anyone who left school at 16 can leave right away. No doubt Priti will sort them out.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
But then we get into very controversial arguments about lives v life.
So we do, but IIRC the opposition at Holyrood weren't getting involved in any of those subtleties when it came to care home death figures, and it is a minority administration.
Fair enough. I don't follow Scottish politics all that closely, but that's a good example of oppositions needing to think carefully before criticizing.
I did say I was going from memory, but they did make hay with it, plus there is an ongoing inquiry taking place as well. Which may be another difference?
Also the fewer ill oldies the fewer beds occupied in hospitals.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems.employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
Spartan If.
Perhaps he's just lucky, but then luck is useful commodity.
The European Commission still seems desperate to create a UK-EU 'vaccine war' if the tweets of friendly journalists are anything to go by.
The EU is desperate for this to be "EU vs Britain" and not "EU vs Astrazeneca AB".
AIUI AstraZeneca has to submit to the EMA its planned production process/facilities, so the EMA can OK them. If AZ haven't yet submitted the UK facilities, there's not much the EU can do about it - they'd be asking for vaccines the EMA hadn't approved....
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
But he won. In London. Twice. As a Tory. And then he won the Brexit referendum against the entire establishment. And then he won the leadership of the Tories. And then he won an election with an 80 seat majority, the largest Tory win since 1987. That's my evidence, what's yours?
We get excited and contemptuous that he ran away from Andrew Neill. The general public couldn't give a toss.
But context matters here. Yes he did win London twice - but the Tories managed to win the GLC twice under Plummer in 1967 & 1970 - and again under Cutler in 1977. In 2012 Johnson only scraped in against a weak, discredited opponent and suffered a significant adverse swing -and would have lost to a stronger candidate such as Jowell. How would he have fared against Starmer in 2019? Moreover, he was a new face in 2019 - that novelty factor will be missing next time.
As I have said before Boris's greatest strength is that he gets people to underestimate him. He's just lucky, time after time after time. It's astonishing that this still works despite his considerable efforts both intentional and unintentional to keep up the façade. But it clearly does.
Maybe look at it a different way. Hunt and SKS seem to me to have a lot in common. Both smart, articulate, reasonable, well-meaning, devoted to public service and both with a reasonable back story to support their competence and credibility. I actually have quite a lot of respect for them. But Boris-v-Hunt turned into a massacre. Labour should reflect on that.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems.employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
Spartan If.
Perhaps he's just lucky, but then luck is useful commodity.
Indeed. I can't tell how much of Britain's stunning vaccine rollout is down to him or whether he has got lucky. Clearly a LOT of very clued up people were involved: it's a long, and brilliant, story which is starting to come to light (good piece by Robert Mendick in yesterday's Telegraph and another today on Sky News). Did Boris sign off on it all? I don't know but either way he's going to be the one taking much of the praise.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
Depends on how fast the relative rates of vaccinating are. If you can vaccinate the later groups faster and more easily than Group 1 then absolute numbers don't tell the whole story.
Also we started vaccinating in December. It's now the end of January and Scottish rate is slowest in the UK. SNP doing something very wrong.
Was Attlee really so charismatic - particularly when compared to Churchill?
No he wasn't. But that was then when politics was not about soundbites but lengthy speeches, when interviewers asked politely if there was anything else that the interviewee wanted to add, when politics was not a part of the entertainment industry. Its a completely different world.
I don't disagree really there - but that world had disappeared even by the 1964 election. There is no reason why Starmer - and other politicians - could not revert to the hour long in depth Panorama type interview as conducted by Robin Day and Brian Walden in the days of Wilson, Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher.His more serious personna would probably be well suited to that.
Hmm, on that logic the Scottish Government got it precisely correct with its focus on the vulnerable old in care homes and sheltering at home - to begin with, at any rate.
But then we get into very controversial arguments about lives v life.
So we do, but IIRC the opposition at Holyrood weren't getting involved in any of those subtleties when it came to care home death figures, and it is a minority administration.
Fair enough. I don't follow Scottish politics all that closely, but that's a good example of oppositions needing to think carefully before criticizing.
I did say I was going from memory, but they did make hay with it, plus there is an ongoing inquiry taking place as well. Which may be another difference?
Also the fewer ill oldies the fewer beds occupied in hospitals.
I guess it's also a question of how many care homes have problems at any given time.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
On topic, one of Starmer's bigger problems is the quality of his cabinet. Of his frontbench, Miliband is the only real big hitter, and I suspect large parts of the electorate will remember him well enough to not respond well to him. Rayner is interesting, but probably not well calibrated to appeal to Middle England, and Thornberry is good but rather tainted by past associations.
Of the rest, Lammy, Nandy, Ashworth and Rachel Reeves are lightweights, and Dodds seems MIA. I had to Google who the shadow Home Sec is, and I'm still not much the wiser.
All of which is to say that Starmer is likely to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in any election campaign himself, and I don't think he has the personality to do so. Johnson would likely crush him, and I think he would also have a very hard time against Sunak, who is currently - although things can change very quickly - probably the Conservatives' biggest asset.
And not helped by some of his Shadow Cabinet allowing themselves to be portrayed as Wokeist Warriors
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
I'd take that client from Hell ahead of Trump any day of the week and twice on Thursdays.
That's some world class bullcrap to seek to imply the UK has made just as many noises on this issue though 'both will threaten legal action'. Yes, it's a hypothetical, but its effect is to imply there's been two sides being as bitchy as each other.
Starmer's role. as with Kinnock before him, is to pull Labour back from it's Corbyn madness and detoxify them ready for whoever takes over from him to become Prime Minister in five or ten years?
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
But he won. In London. Twice. As a Tory. And then he won the Brexit referendum against the entire establishment. And then he won the leadership of the Tories. And then he won an election with an 80 seat majority, the largest Tory win since 1987. That's my evidence, what's yours?
We get excited and contemptuous that he ran away from Andrew Neill. The general public couldn't give a toss.
But context matters here. Yes he did win London twice - but the Tories managed to win the GLC twice under Plummer in 1967 & 1970 - and again under Cutler in 1977. In 2012 Johnson only scraped in against a weak, discredited opponent and suffered a significant adverse swing -and would have lost to a stronger candidate such as Jowell. How would he have fared against Starmer in 2019? Moreover, he was a new face in 2019 - that novelty factor will be missing next time.
As I have said before Boris's greatest strength is that he gets people to underestimate him. He's just lucky, time after time after time. It's astonishing that this still works despite his considerable efforts both intentional and unintentional to keep up the façade. But it clearly does.
Maybe look at it a different way. Hunt and SKS seem to me to have a lot in common. Both smart, articulate, reasonable, well-meaning, devoted to public service and both with a reasonable back story to support their competence and credibility. I actually have quite a lot of respect for them. But Boris-v-Hunt turned into a massacre. Labour should reflect on that.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
But he won. In London. Twice. As a Tory. And then he won the Brexit referendum against the entire establishment. And then he won the leadership of the Tories. And then he won an election with an 80 seat majority, the largest Tory win since 1987. That's my evidence, what's yours?
We get excited and contemptuous that he ran away from Andrew Neill. The general public couldn't give a toss.
But context matters here. Yes he did win London twice - but the Tories managed to win the GLC twice under Plummer in 1967 & 1970 - and again under Cutler in 1977. In 2012 Johnson only scraped in against a weak, discredited opponent and suffered a significant adverse swing -and would have lost to a stronger candidate such as Jowell. How would he have fared against Starmer in 2019? Moreover, he was a new face in 2019 - that novelty factor will be missing next time.
As I have said before Boris's greatest strength is that he gets people to underestimate him. He's just lucky, time after time after time. It's astonishing that this still works despite his considerable efforts both intentional and unintentional to keep up the façade. But it clearly does.
Maybe look at it a different way. Hunt and SKS seem to me to have a lot in common. Both smart, articulate, reasonable, well-meaning, devoted to public service and both with a reasonable back story to support their competence and credibility. I actually have quite a lot of respect for them. But Boris-v-Hunt turned into a massacre. Labour should reflect on that.
But that was with Tory party members desperate to be rescued from May's paralysis. Based on polling, he seems much less popular with them now!
But its going to become the norm. We are looking for 3.5m a week for the next 2 weeks to make that "aspirational" target the government was setting themselves up to fail. I will be astonished if they don't succeed, astonished.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
This has of course occurred to Labour, but our judgment is that new policies will at best not get a serious hearing (we had a go with his regional proposals - remember those? No, right?) and at worst be seen as a distraction from the business of the day, getting rid of Covid. Suppose Labour now put forward well-considered proposals for improving schools from 2024. Teachers might be interested; nobody else will care.
The strategy is to be sober, constructive and occasionally critical of the Covid effort, and await the moment when people say "OK, that's largely out of the way. What now?" The parallel is wartime - Labour said very little about future plans, if they had any, in 1941, but by 1945 the "Now win the peace" slogan was irresistible. Very different times, perhaps not a guide - but it perhaps illustrates the strategy.
I think the problem there Nick is that Starmer and his team are not really demonstrating they are capable of big, bold policies which change the public conversation. I agree it's hard at the moment for them given both the vaccine rollout and also that the Government's furlough schemes and business lending have stopped mass unemployment and enabled businesses to survive in a "deep freeze" element, and people give the Government credit for that. But, as others have said, what exactly is Starmer offering? It is too early for detail but it would be nice to have an idea of his broad brush view on the world. The only thing that sticks in my head at the moment is him taking the bended knee.
The reason it's the only thing that sticks in your head is you are unusually exercised by BLM.
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
Butch Bowers sounds like the name of a gay porn star.
Not having a lawyer whose name is a like porn star will help Trump's defence.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
This has of course occurred to Labour, but our judgment is that new policies will at best not get a serious hearing (we had a go with his regional proposals - remember those? No, right?) and at worst be seen as a distraction from the business of the day, getting rid of Covid. Suppose Labour now put forward well-considered proposals for improving schools from 2024. Teachers might be interested; nobody else will care.
The strategy is to be sober, constructive and occasionally critical of the Covid effort, and await the moment when people say "OK, that's largely out of the way. What now?" The parallel is wartime - Labour said very little about future plans, if they had any, in 1941, but by 1945 the "Now win the peace" slogan was irresistible. Very different times, perhaps not a guide - but it perhaps illustrates the strategy.
I think the problem there Nick is that Starmer and his team are not really demonstrating they are capable of big, bold policies which change the public conversation. I agree it's hard at the moment for them given both the vaccine rollout and also that the Government's furlough schemes and business lending have stopped mass unemployment and enabled businesses to survive in a "deep freeze" element, and people give the Government credit for that. But, as others have said, what exactly is Starmer offering? It is too early for detail but it would be nice to have an idea of his broad brush view on the world. The only thing that sticks in my head at the moment is him taking the bended knee.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
This has of course occurred to Labour, but our judgment is that new policies will at best not get a serious hearing (we had a go with his regional proposals - remember those? No, right?) and at worst be seen as a distraction from the business of the day, getting rid of Covid. Suppose Labour now put forward well-considered proposals for improving schools from 2024. Teachers might be interested; nobody else will care.
The strategy is to be sober, constructive and occasionally critical of the Covid effort, and await the moment when people say "OK, that's largely out of the way. What now?" The parallel is wartime - Labour said very little about future plans, if they had any, in 1941, but by 1945 the "Now win the peace" slogan was irresistible. Very different times, perhaps not a guide - but it perhaps illustrates the strategy.
I think the problem there Nick is that Starmer and his team are not really demonstrating they are capable of big, bold policies which change the public conversation. I agree it's hard at the moment for them given both the vaccine rollout and also that the Government's furlough schemes and business lending have stopped mass unemployment and enabled businesses to survive in a "deep freeze" element, and people give the Government credit for that. But, as others have said, what exactly is Starmer offering? It is too early for detail but it would be nice to have an idea of his broad brush view on the world. The only thing that sticks in my head at the moment is him taking the bended knee.
What was Thatcher offering in 1975 and 1976? Or Heath in 1967?
Thatcher was already moving to a position where she wanted to reset the relationship with the unions, which was the #1 issue at the time. Whilst the details weren't there, the direction of travel was clearer. Heath is a more obvious analogy but there Wilson managed to shoot himself in the foot allowed Heath a route in. And there's another problem for SKS - the electorate realises that the Government has faced not one but two once in a lifetime massive issues (Brexit and the pandemic) and thinks they haven't done a bad job, in fact a good job when it comes to the vaccine rollout and also with protecting jobs / businesses. You might argue that could change but what happens if it doesn't?
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Where's the Moral High Ground in a member of the demographic that's certain to be jabbed telling the other half of the population to sacrifice their health and freedom indefinitely for the sake of said jabbed person's abstract principles?
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
Starmer's role. as with Kinnock before him, is to pull Labour back from it's Corbyn madness and detoxify them ready for whoever takes over from him to become Prime Minister in five or ten years?
I am stunned that Johnson and his successor are going to avoid any blame for the forthcoming economic carnage.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems.employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
Johnson's skills as a campaigner are widely overrated - in that he spent much of the 2019 campaign running - or hiding - away from scrutiny. In 2008 he became the first Tory to win London since Horace Cutler ran the GLC, but he was fortunate to be the candidate at a time when the Labour government was deeply unpopular.By 2012 he faced a widely discredited Ken Livingstone yet was only narrowly re-elected with a 3.5% swing against him compared with 2008. Had Tessa Jowell been Labour's candidate, he probably would have been defeated.
Spartan If.
Perhaps he's just lucky, but then luck is useful commodity.
But its going to become the norm. We are looking for 3.5m a week for the next 2 weeks to make that "aspirational" target the government was setting themselves up to fail. I will be astonished if they don't succeed, astonished.
The only things that will see the government fail to hit their target is a supply issue or a period of really bad weather.
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
This has of course occurred to Labour, but our judgment is that new policies will at best not get a serious hearing (we had a go with his regional proposals - remember those? No, right?) and at worst be seen as a distraction from the business of the day, getting rid of Covid. Suppose Labour now put forward well-considered proposals for improving schools from 2024. Teachers might be interested; nobody else will care.
The strategy is to be sober, constructive and occasionally critical of the Covid effort, and await the moment when people say "OK, that's largely out of the way. What now?" The parallel is wartime - Labour said very little about future plans, if they had any, in 1941, but by 1945 the "Now win the peace" slogan was irresistible. Very different times, perhaps not a guide - but it perhaps illustrates the strategy.
I think the problem there Nick is that Starmer and his team are not really demonstrating they are capable of big, bold policies which change the public conversation. I agree it's hard at the moment for them given both the vaccine rollout and also that the Government's furlough schemes and business lending have stopped mass unemployment and enabled businesses to survive in a "deep freeze" element, and people give the Government credit for that. But, as others have said, what exactly is Starmer offering? It is too early for detail but it would be nice to have an idea of his broad brush view on the world. The only thing that sticks in my head at the moment is him taking the bended knee.
The reason it's the only thing that sticks in your head is you are unusually exercised by BLM.
Maybe you can provide an example of what sticks in your head when it comes to SKS?
But its going to become the norm. We are looking for 3.5m a week for the next 2 weeks to make that "aspirational" target the government was setting themselves up to fail. I will be astonished if they don't succeed, astonished.
Is it possible to do even more each day? It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
Number needed to treat is the gold standard for comparing treatment strategies and effectiveness.
Yes, that is the main reason I switched from backing a "vaccinate the productive young" to "vaccinate the likely to be hospitalised" after speaking to a family member in the NHS. He said my strategy would result in 60k in hospital for COVID by mid February. He was right and that's what the context of the priority list is, if Labour wants to change that then they should be challenged on how hospitals will cope with all of the additional patients that results from diverting doses from those likely to end up in hospital to those who aren't.
It pains me to say this but Dirty Leeds do play some quality football.
Dunno about Leeds but the money has been coming for West Ham to beat your lot this afternoon. 7/2 into 11/4 or less.
No Sadio Mane today, our centre backs are our fifth choice centre back and a midfielder.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.
I wouldn’t bet against that Liverpool team. Shaqiri and Origi perennially under estimated.
When you say quality football in regards Leeds, pass and finish for second goal was quality, but the success this season is more the system? They don’t seem to pass sideways or around in training ground style keep ball very much, they are often facing forward and pass it there, or facing backward and pass it there. And in a way that seems to suit COVID football? The Man united and Leicester home defeats this week could have been very different in front home crowds who would inspire more oomph from their teams at times, instead they hold possession a lot thinking they are doing well but not converting that into attempts.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Can you give us an example of how Blair's Government which used exactly this argument or indeed the 0.7% overseas development commitment accrued the UK's soft power?
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
On topic, one of Starmer's bigger problems is the quality of his cabinet. Of his frontbench, Miliband is the only real big hitter, and I suspect large parts of the electorate will remember him well enough to not respond well to him. Rayner is interesting, but probably not well calibrated to appeal to Middle England, and Thornberry is good but rather tainted by past associations.
Of the rest, Lammy, Nandy, Ashworth and Rachel Reeves are lightweights, and Dodds seems MIA. I had to Google who the shadow Home Sec is, and I'm still not much the wiser.
If they were up against a premier league side, you'd start to worry.
That's some world class bullcrap to seek to imply the UK has made just as many noises on this issue though 'both will threaten legal action'. Yes, it's a hypothetical, but its effect is to imply there's been two sides being as bitchy as each other.
Reminds me of the German suggestion at the start of WW1 that the French were morally equivalent, since they would have invaded Belgium, if they had tried to invade Germany.
Except the French.... didn't invade any neutral countries.
It is worth noting that, this week, Canada received no vaccine. None. Zero. They haven't threatened Pfizer, or anyone else.
Starmer's role. as with Kinnock before him, is to pull Labour back from it's Corbyn madness and detoxify them ready for whoever takes over from him to become Prime Minister in five or ten years?
I am stunned that Johnson and his successor are going to avoid any blame for the forthcoming economic carnage.
Why? Most people realise this situation came out of the blue. The Government's furlough scheme, with 80% funding, was incredibly popular and, while many businesses are struggling as Cyclefree's examples attest, there is a feeling we are (just) about getting through. I'm not sure what you would count as success given the current situation
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
Tbh, we're going to be in a position to ramp down testing in a few weeks, the demand will just completely fall off a cliff.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
It’s one of those situations where you get the most political capital from doing nothing, because the situation speaks for itself. Rubbing your opponents’ noses in it would lose political capital.
Starmer's role. as with Kinnock before him, is to pull Labour back from it's Corbyn madness and detoxify them ready for whoever takes over from him to become Prime Minister in five or ten years?
I am stunned that Johnson and his successor are going to avoid any blame for the forthcoming economic carnage.
What are you thinking? Serious inflation? House price crash? Unemployment over 10%?
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
Tbh, we're going to be in a position to ramp down testing in a few weeks, the demand will just completely fall off a cliff.
The important thing going forward will be to make sure that the trace and isolate parts of the process also work properly. Just because the disease is suppressed it doesn't mean it's gone away.
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
Tbh, we're going to be in a position to ramp down testing in a few weeks, the demand will just completely fall off a cliff.
I agree and those medics who are doing it can then turn their hands to more vaccines as they become available. But as you have pointed out more than most we have a real chance of coming out of this crisis as one of the leading suppliers of medical procedures to the world, really building on our research base into delivery in a way we have not come close to managing before. It's a fantastic opportunity and I can only hope we grab it with both hands.
Nice dig, but I hope the National Guard is never, ever confused with the police.
De jure law enforcement in the situation ?
Section 252 of The Insurrection Act
“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
SKS is obviously a massive improvement on Corbyn. He is not stupid, racist, bigoted or anti-western, It is not hard to imagine him as a PM although it is pretty difficult to imagine several of his current shadow cabinet holding down the main job, including his Chancellor.
For me he has 3 problems. The first is Boris who is an excellent campaigner who is brilliant at building big enough tents to give him a majority. Secondly, Boris is also funny and Starmer isn't. This is a major problem with the UK populace who don't take politicians remotely seriously themselves and expect a bit of entertainment when their lives are interrupted.
But surely the biggest problem is that we have no idea what kind of a country he wants, other than one run by him. Does he want more taxes? What does he think of our education system? How are we going to develop the industries and employers of the future? Is a balanced budget important or irrelevant? What are his plans for social care?
The likelihood is that by 2024 the UK economy will be about the same size as it was a year ago, maybe a little smaller. Money is going to be tight. The debts left by Covid are going to be horrendous. Several sectors will be very badly hit. What are our priorities in this difficult but completely foreseeable position? He really should get around to telling us.
This has of course occurred to Labour, but our judgment is that new policies will at best not get a serious hearing (we had a go with his regional proposals - remember those? No, right?) and at worst be seen as a distraction from the business of the day, getting rid of Covid. Suppose Labour now put forward well-considered proposals for improving schools from 2024. Teachers might be interested; nobody else will care.
The strategy is to be sober, constructive and occasionally critical of the Covid effort, and await the moment when people say "OK, that's largely out of the way. What now?" The parallel is wartime - Labour said very little about future plans, if they had any, in 1941, but by 1945 the "Now win the peace" slogan was irresistible. Very different times, perhaps not a guide - but it perhaps illustrates the strategy.
Yes. Absolutely no mileage in laying out vision & policies atm. If by the time the election comes the average floating voter is thinking, "Starmer? Yeah, I can see him as PM," it will be mission accomplished. You don't get a hearing for the offer if you don't clear that bar.
"If" doing some heavy lifting there....
Not really. I'd say that's one thing he's clearly scoring on. The public are seeing him as a tenable PM. Or at least that's what they say when asked. Could be lying of course. Johnson could be something of a Guilty Pleasure for many. Same thing as happens with surveys asking people if they like Barry Manilow or Neil Diamond. The "Yes" % is always down in the single digits, but the record sales tell a different story.
But its going to become the norm. We are looking for 3.5m a week for the next 2 weeks to make that "aspirational" target the government was setting themselves up to fail. I will be astonished if they don't succeed, astonished.
Is it possible to do even more each day? It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
If we have the vaccine its more than possible, its inevitable. I will be very disappointed if we top out at less than 1m.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
All the EU was doing was pushing the relative success of the UK's vaccination programme to the top of the news. All the Tories needed to do was sit back and enjoy.
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
Also cases now seem to be below the peak before Lockdown2® which is fantastic. Another few weeks at this rate and we'll be approaching zero.
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
Butch Bowers sounds like the name of a gay porn star.
Not having a lawyer whose name is a like porn star will help Trump's defence.
TSE, you ignorant Brit! Here in the US of A, Butch is a quintessentially American nickname. Indeed, THE quintessentially American nickname. For example, Butch Cassidy (pal of the Sundance Kid) and Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho. (Not sure about the Gov but positive that Cassidy never starred in one of your "entertainments".)
AND on your own (admittedly puny) shores, am guessing you are also ignorant of the fact that "Butch" is was his comrades called Sir Arthur Harris, that is before the called him "Bomber"? (Admit I didn't know it until I dredged it up from Wiki)
Thus two great nations (at least) mourn your folly!
Starmer's role. as with Kinnock before him, is to pull Labour back from it's Corbyn madness and detoxify them ready for whoever takes over from him to become Prime Minister in five or ten years?
I am stunned that Johnson and his successor are going to avoid any blame for the forthcoming economic carnage.
What are you thinking? Serious inflation? House price crash? Unemployment over 10%?
The piece I nearly wrote this weekend was just about that.
The outline of the piece was that the debt needs to be sorted out, so that means high inflation, plus there's going to need higher taxes and new taxes.
I suspect the other part of the carnage is that departmental spending is going to get slashed in every department apart from health/pandemic preparedness.
I think education may also be spared to help children recover from two lost academic years.
I suspect the government won't be able to cut unemployment based benefits either.
My friend who works for a Job Centre Plus said one of the most common conversations over the last year is from middle class people saying 'I never knew JSA/UC was so low.'
OT The thing I can't understand about the whole vaccination fiasco is why Johnson and Gove aren't jumping up and down trying to make political capital about this. Their fanbois on PB on Friday evening were in ecstacy about it all. I wonder if there is something in the argument that AZ unofficially diverted some jabs into the UK pile. I remember in the news back in December/January it was announced that there would be a shortage of jabs anyway due to underproduction. This doesn't seem to have become apparent, so perhaps there may have been a little back scratching going on.....
They have made political capital out of it by doing exactly what they have done - saying nothing unless absolutely necessary. First and foremost this was an argument between AZN and the EU. By standing aloof until it directly threatened us - such as banning exports or invoking article 16 - and then simply registering concern, they have done for more for both their cause and the British position in all of this than if they had started shouting and making overt capital out of it.
It is far more adult a position than I ever expected from Johnson. I fear it won't last.
Agree with you, Richard. Whether the EC do or do not have a case against AZ - and I do not share the certainty of some on here that they don't - the reaction of our government has so far been absolutely spot on. Mature. Peaceful. No British Bulldog. No warrior rhetoric. It is both the right response and it works.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
Excellent.
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
My friend who works for a JCP said one of the most common conversations over the last year is from middle class people saying 'I never knew JSA/UC was so low.'
Over 4m tests in just 7 days? In some ways that is the most incredible statistic of them all. An absolute transformation of performance over the last 6 months. It also demonstrates that there is masses of further capacity to deliver vaccines if required and supply remains the limitation.
Also cases now seem to be below the peak before Lockdown2® which is fantastic. Another few weeks at this rate and we'll be approaching zero.
There was a good piece in the FT linked to yesterday, I think by @CarlottaVance , which explained that what we would see would be things seeming to move relatively slowly and then quite quickly as we reach tipping points. I think that point when things start to improve fast is 3-4 weeks away.
Portugal's Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva has defended European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and called for unity, after a week that saw tensions over the EU’s handling of its vaccine shortage crisis.
"There is no reason for the leaders of Europe to argue. It is very important that we keep united," he told the BBC.
"As holders of the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, Portugal fully supports Ursula von der Leyen - she’s doing a great effort to address the shortfalls of production of vaccines by first Pfizer and now AstraZeneca.
I would hate to see what it would be like if she was doing poorly....
Beyond doing lots of stamping their feet, and making accusatory public statements about AZ and UK for domestic political consumption, i genuinely hope that they are beneath the surface actually taking some meaningful steps to improve vaccine manufacture and supply to address the shortfalls. Even if they don't bear fruit for a few weeks/months.
The other issue to put in place is a delivery system. From what I have seen, no-one in Europe (with the possible, partial, exception of Germany) has put the systems in place to go for vaccination rates of 0.5% or 1% of the population per day.
Such system do not accidentally come into existence. Even the in US chaos, there was a very considerable effort to align their enormous healthcare system (however badly) to deliver.
Didn’t someone post last night to flag how relatively low flu vaccine success was in most EU countries compared to us? Delivery mechanisms etc.
At least 27 different delivery systems. Maybe Belgium is blessed with two? Clearly the solution is More Europe. And retraining squaddies to give jabs may be an issue in countries such as France and the Netherlands where they are still fully employed fighting the citizenry.
Just seen on FB Spain has received a delivery of 52K Moderna vaccine with another 800K by the end of February. Utterly pathetic. Worse still it's presented as some kind of achievement!
Politico.com - Trump’s top impeachment lawyer has left his team Butch Bowers and another lawyer are no longer set to defend Trump during his impeachment trial, which is just days away.
"Former President Donald Trump has lost his top impeachment lawyer just days before his trial is to begin, a person familiar with his legal strategy and two attorneys close to the team confirmed on Saturday night.
Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer who was reportedly set to play a major role in the Senate’s trial of the former president, is now no longer with the team. Deborah Barbier, another South Carolina lawyer, won’t be either. The person described it as a “mutual decision” and said new names will be announced shortly.
In addition, CNN reported on Saturday night that a third member of Trump's prospective legal team, Josh Howard, was also leaving. The network reported that the ex-president had wanted his lawyers to focus on erroneous arguments of mass election fraud rather than the constitutionality of impeaching an ex-president. . . . . ."
Butch Bowers sounds like the name of a gay porn star.
Not having a lawyer whose name is a like porn star will help Trump's defence.
TSE, you ignorant Brit! Here in the US of A, Butch is a quintessentially American nickname. Indeed, THE quintessentially American nickname. For example, Butch Cassidy (pal of the Sundance Kid) and Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho. (Not sure about the Gov but positive that Cassidy never starred in one of your "entertainments".)
AND on your own (admittedly puny) shores, am guessing you are also ignorant of the fact that "Butch" is was his comrades called Sir Arthur Harris, that is before the called him "Bomber"? (Admit I didn't know it until I dredged it up from Wiki)
Thus two great nations (at least) mourn your folly!
I think it't the alliteration more than just the first name. One of England's best football/soccer players of the last few decadesm Ray Wilkins. was nicknemes 'Butch' as well.
If Starmer copies Piers Morgan and just conducts an unremitting campaign to try and undermine public confidence in the government's actions, then he'll quickly become held in the same regard as Piers Morgan. This is a national emergency, people expect the LOTO to behave responsibly and so a balance has to be struck.
All that poll reflects is the fact that Morgan is willing to throw every brickbat he can at the government, deserved or not, and has a platform to do so for two hours every day. Morgan doesn't mind if he goes over the top in order to add to his notoriety and further trash his own reputation. That's partly because controversy helps his show's ratings in the same way it helped The Jeremy Kyle Show, and partly because there's nothing left to trash.
But its going to become the norm. We are looking for 3.5m a week for the next 2 weeks to make that "aspirational" target the government was setting themselves up to fail. I will be astonished if they don't succeed, astonished.
The only things that will see the government fail to hit their target is a supply issue or a period of really bad weather.
Yes, it seems basically to boil down to supply. There might be an issue with capacity as well, but there's been no evidence I've read of that so far in the ramping up.
A look at the weather forecast for the next fortnight, albeit that it obviously becomes much less reliable after the first few days, suggests nothing out of the ordinary for February - chilly, intermittent damp weather, no sign of storms.
Comments
SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have any selection advantage in becoming less fatal, unlike many other viruses. The lengthy presymptomatic phase scuppers that.
Instead, its route towards evolutionary advantage for itself lies down the twin routes of higher transmissibility and immune escape, so those are the directions down which lie the mutations we should expect.
And, for that matter, we have already seen progress that way in current mutations.
Antonio is playing for the spanners, and he loves playing against us.
Liverpool are getting humped today.
Definitely time to lay Liverpool or back West Ham.
If they do all actually turn up in one year then it's manageable. 300,000 is a large number and would create a spike in the population growth record, but not a massive one relative to what has happened for much of the UK's 21st century history. IIRC we were growing by a number approximately equal to the entire city of Liverpool every twelve months prior to the EU referendum. Nor do I expect that it would cause grumbling amongst those who are generally sceptical about immigration: unlike the long-term flows that helped to provoke Brexit, we're talking here about an event, with a finite number of people, who will also engender public sympathy.
Of the rest, Lammy, Nandy, Ashworth and Rachel Reeves are lightweights, and Dodds seems MIA. I had to Google who the shadow Home Sec is, and I'm still not much the wiser.
All of which is to say that Starmer is likely to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in any election campaign himself, and I don't think he has the personality to do so. Johnson would likely crush him, and I think he would also have a very hard time against Sunak, who is currently - although things can change very quickly - probably the Conservatives' biggest asset.
https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1355743552152563713
Although he's no Divock Origi when it mattered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HldRlTZj_g
“You know you have fucked up on an epic scale when Sinn Féin, the DUP and the Archbishop of Canterbury are united in condemning you,” an EU source conceded of the extraordinary events that soon transpired.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/31/how-eus-floundering-vaccine-effort-hit-a-fresh-crisis-with-exports-row
Let him speak between now and them, or let him decide strategies and he might somehow get a conviction even though the Senators are desperate to not do so.
Moreover, he was a new face in 2019 - that novelty factor will be missing next time.
Sadly no Starmer isn't up to it. He was the right person for the previous decade, not this one.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355904458190966790
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355907770076319744
Also the fewer ill oldies the fewer beds occupied in hospitals.
Perhaps he's just lucky, but then luck is useful commodity.
AIUI AstraZeneca has to submit to the EMA its planned production process/facilities, so the EMA can OK them. If AZ haven't yet submitted the UK facilities, there's not much the EU can do about it - they'd be asking for vaccines the EMA hadn't approved....
Maybe look at it a different way. Hunt and SKS seem to me to have a lot in common. Both smart, articulate, reasonable, well-meaning, devoted to public service and both with a reasonable back story to support their competence and credibility. I actually have quite a lot of respect for them. But Boris-v-Hunt turned into a massacre. Labour should reflect on that.
Also we started vaccinating in December. It's now the end of January and Scottish rate is slowest in the UK. SNP doing something very wrong.
Was Attlee really so charismatic - particularly when compared to Churchill?
No he wasn't. But that was then when politics was not about soundbites but lengthy speeches, when interviewers asked politely if there was anything else that the interviewee wanted to add, when politics was not a part of the entertainment industry. Its a completely different world.
I don't disagree really there - but that world had disappeared even by the 1964 election. There is no reason why Starmer - and other politicians - could not revert to the hour long in depth Panorama type interview as conducted by Robin Day and Brian Walden in the days of Wilson, Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher.His more serious personna would probably be well suited to that.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1355903161647693824?s=20
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
Amazing.
And I wish to widen and develop this point. There is much sentiment along the lines of "We've done great on vaccines and should reap the full reward. Let's not even think about helping out others until we've jabbed every man jack of our own."
I totally get this. But imo we should not take that approach. The Moral High Ground beckons here and I think we should take the opportunity to occupy it. Forget about bleeding hearts, I know that isn't popular. Forget about my previous argument that you have to fight a global pandemic globally. I know that isn't popular either.
Here's the new argument. The MHG has great value. It accrues soft power. And what a great time it is for the UK to grab some. Brexit has supposedly given birth to something called Global Britain. We keep hearing this. Well, by leading on global vaccination, we can at a stroke turn it into something tangible and positive. Something to be proud of. We can set the tone for what sort of country we want to be - are going to be - outside the EU.
And the real kicker is it will on the whole appeal more to Remainers than Leavers. People like me will applaud and be reassured about what Brexit means. Most Leavers OTOH will be spitting feathers and wondering WTF is that all about. Why are we helping foreigners? The only ones who won't be pissed off will be the sort of liberal ones like you who clog up PB.
So, point is, it will be giving Remainers a Brexit Dividend, thus proving them (us) wrong to assume it would bring nothing but negatives apart from cheaper tampons. It will reduce the polarization in the country and at the same time benefit the Cons because it would attract more Remainers than the Leavers it would lose. Leavers being more sticky. A political masterstroke, in other words, which I commend to the House.
https://leftfootforward.org/2021/01/no-lisa-nandy-does-not-want-to-abolish-the-army-but-she-should/
Not having a lawyer whose name is a like porn star will help Trump's defence.
We can protect our own people - all of them - and claim the moral high ground by donating to COVAX and giving away our surplus to the developing world. I reckon that'll be good enough for the vast majority of the voting public to go along with.
I know!
When you say quality football in regards Leeds, pass and finish for second goal was quality, but the success this season is more the system? They don’t seem to pass sideways or around in training ground style keep ball very much, they are often facing forward and pass it there, or facing backward and pass it there. And in a way that seems to suit COVID football? The Man united and Leicester home defeats this week could have been very different in front home crowds who would inspire more oomph from their teams at times, instead they hold possession a lot thinking they are doing well but not converting that into attempts.
Except the French.... didn't invade any neutral countries.
It is worth noting that, this week, Canada received no vaccine. None. Zero. They haven't threatened Pfizer, or anyone else.
Section 252 of The Insurrection Act
“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
Lets vaccinate everyone in Brazil, after we've done the UK.
AND on your own (admittedly puny) shores, am guessing you are also ignorant of the fact that "Butch" is was his comrades called Sir Arthur Harris, that is before the called him "Bomber"? (Admit I didn't know it until I dredged it up from Wiki)
Thus two great nations (at least) mourn your folly!
The outline of the piece was that the debt needs to be sorted out, so that means high inflation, plus there's going to need higher taxes and new taxes.
I suspect the other part of the carnage is that departmental spending is going to get slashed in every department apart from health/pandemic preparedness.
I think education may also be spared to help children recover from two lost academic years.
I suspect the government won't be able to cut unemployment based benefits either.
My friend who works for a Job Centre Plus said one of the most common conversations over the last year is from middle class people saying 'I never knew JSA/UC was so low.'
If Starmer copies Piers Morgan and just conducts an unremitting campaign to try and undermine public confidence in the government's actions, then he'll quickly become held in the same regard as Piers Morgan. This is a national emergency, people expect the LOTO to behave responsibly and so a balance has to be struck.
All that poll reflects is the fact that Morgan is willing to throw every brickbat he can at the government, deserved or not, and has a platform to do so for two hours every day. Morgan doesn't mind if he goes over the top in order to add to his notoriety and further trash his own reputation. That's partly because controversy helps his show's ratings in the same way it helped The Jeremy Kyle Show, and partly because there's nothing left to trash.
A look at the weather forecast for the next fortnight, albeit that it obviously becomes much less reliable after the first few days, suggests nothing out of the ordinary for February - chilly, intermittent damp weather, no sign of storms.