It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Yes, the EU has decided it wants to have more slices of one pizza, the US and UK have decided to simply order more pizzas.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
The EU wants OUR pizza. Despite our having ordered it half an hour ago. And despite their professing to HATE pineapple....
There was some initial concern here over the speed of authorisation. Not, I hasten to add, concern which I particularly shared. MHRA is a pretty tough organisation.
Her comments are nonsense. And designed to distract from their vaccine contracts debacle.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Yes - I thought that - though some of the actual members.............
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
Does it? We can ask the EU to join as one of the conditions of the future Europa-British Union agreement.
The UK looks to be a real centre of excellence for vaccine research, development and manufacture - including the sequencing and so forth. We're also a reliable exporter, unlike some have been in this pandemic. Looks to me like we're the ideal place for truly global production.
UK variant has mutated again, scientists say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55900625 ...Tests on some samples show a mutation, called E484K, already seen in the South Africa and Brazil variants that are of concern. Although this change may affect vaccine effectiveness, the current ones in use should still work, say experts...
Suggests that some parallel evolution is going on - which might mean that the useful mutations available to the virus in terms of evading our immune response are constrained in some way.
Oh, and which of us didn't predict exactly this - weeks back?
The EU seem to only just be waking up to the fact there are two communities in Northern Ireland to worry about.
I don't recall the EU placing an intra-UK border down the Irish Sea. They had a proposal to get around the whole issue which was rejected massively and repeatedly by the 2017 parliament.
Because the 2017 solution was even worse. The NI Protocol subjugating NI to rules they don't vote for is bad and the solution is to find a way out of that mess for NI.
Instead the 2017 solution was to apply the bad protocol for NI to the entire UK simultaneously. That's worse.
That's like saying the solution for one person being sick is to make everyone sick.
GB is out of the Protocol now, good, so now we need to find a way to extract NI out of it too.
And how do we do that? We're back to either invent the world's first digital customs border, or the GFA collapses and potentially the peace. The Intra-Irish border was always the unsquareable circle. If UK was to diverge from the EU and the Irish border must remain open, then NI could no longer be a full part of the UK.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
UK variant has mutated again, scientists say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55900625 ...Tests on some samples show a mutation, called E484K, already seen in the South Africa and Brazil variants that are of concern. Although this change may affect vaccine effectiveness, the current ones in use should still work, say experts...
Suggests that some parallel evolution is going on - which might mean that the useful mutations available to the virus in terms of evading our immune response are constrained in some way.
As someone who knows about this stuff, I was wondering if you had any views on the straight up and down again arrowhead shaped graph of cases in SA that eerily (to my untrained eye and mind) mimics our own?
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
Very basically I believe it opens up the services markets of the member countries to services businesses from other member countries. More than that I don't know. Yes, they speak beautiful English in Europe so it's not a big issue but I still think it makes it a bit easier if letters and documents and stuff don't require translation.
You've got to love the cheerful way Liz Truss is quietly, efficiently getting on with her job.
And killing Rejoin in the process.
One to watch for the future it seems is Liz.
Nobody is doubting that Liz Truss is doing a good job.
The suggestion she is "killing" "Rejoin" is laughable though. It's simply wishful thinking on your part. We quite frankly do not know.
What will kill Rejoin is solid growth with minimal inconvenience to the average Brit going about their day-to-day life. That remains to be seen.
There's also the question whether the EU identity politics will endure or not. Again we don't know but I am surprised how high Rejoin polls even now.
As I keep repeating, the rejoin question is not about the EU, its about the EEA. The EU ship has sailed, and I can't see how any serious politician will be able to muster mass support for joining fully the EU and all the things we'd opted out of like the Euro.
The EEA? That's different. We need to be able to trade, and its clear that the CTA shat that particular bed. With a comprehensive lack of viable solutions other than "set up abroad" we're going to have to renegotiate sooner or later. OK later, as we know Shagger does nothing that might make him unpopular until he absolutely can't avoid it.
"the rejoin question is not about the EU, its about the EEA. The EU ship has sailed"
Getting there - in stages. I think many Remainers haven't quite travelled that far yet.
Well at the rate they are going, it certainly will be....and the Dutch seem to be running it wearing a giant Rhino outfit.
This whole idea of it being a marathon is bullshit. It's a sprint all the way. People who say it are covering up for rubbish schemes or terrible purchasing and capacity.
Hmm I'd say it is a marathon, Israel in the lead pushing for 2 hrs 20, the UK trying for sub 3 hours and the EU haven't done sufficient training and are finding it tough after a mile or so, wondering if they'll finish in front of the road close time of 8 hours.
It takes a long time, so it looks like a marathon, but the key difference between a marathon and a sprint for the purposes of this analogy is not length. It's pacing.
For a marathon a runner has to hold themselves back from going too fast early on, otherwise they will tire themselves out, and may not be able to complete.
For Covid this doesn't really apply unless you take things to ridiculous extremes. So, for example, we shouldn't expect individual vaccinators to attempt to work 16 hour days, because they will quickly become burned out and make mistakes.
But as a country as a whole we can simply have more individuals working 8 hour days, and we can sprint vaccinations as fast as possible. There's no downside. No requirement to pace ourselves.
If it is a marathon have we enough tin foil at the end of it? Better order it before the pesky EU lot do.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
Very basically I believe it opens up the services markets of the member countries to services businesses from other member countries. More than that I don't know. Yes, they speak beautiful English in Europe so it's not a big issue but I still think it makes it a bit easier if letters and documents and stuff don't require translation.
For specific services including digital, but not banking though I think the UK might put that on the table.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
Sorry to hear that. Best wishes to him and you.
Thank you
We both seem to have family health issues at present
One thing I never see mentioned about all the global trade stuff is the impact on the government's Green agenda. With CPTTP and all the other global trade deals, presumably a higher proportion of our goods than currently are going to be imported/exported from/to much further afield. I assume that will increase our consumption of global resources, carbon footprint etc. Whereas the more goods we import/export from closer to home, the lower our impact on the environment. Or have I just go this wrong? I write this out of curiosity, rather than as a pro-European trade fan.
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Why not?
Given the world needs billions of doses, not millions of doses; given that getting full normality here means we can send more hundreds of millions of doses to the rest of the world rather than just a couple of million to the rest of the world . . .
. . . why do you want to hurt the rest of the world by not finishing the job here?
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Thankfully you are not in charge of vaccine disposition
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Indeed and my mistake and I apologise to Roger.
Just a bit sensitive today as my eldest son was been admitted to hospital in Canada yesterday with a complete mental breakdown following his experiences at 'ground zero' rescues in the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ, and is facing extensive treatment for PTSD and associated mental health issues including 10 sessions over 5 weeks of electroconvulsive therapy
All the best to both of you, Big_G.
Thank you
Very sorry to read this news. Best of luck to the lad. Sounds like he is getting good treatment.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Yes you only want to discuss selected data , we know you of old. I prefer to look at all the data and do not pick the small part that is good for my point. For sure I am certain you will never post anything positive about Scotland. I will continue to view your data in with that in mind, knowing it will at best be partial and slanted.
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
I don't think we need 'everyone done' first either - that's a waste of time that would leave doses stockpiled. But we do need a full vaccination -secured- for every person in the UK. Once that's locked in, let's have at Covid worldwide.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Yes, the EU has decided it wants to have more slices of one pizza, the US and UK have decided to simply order more pizzas.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
Bearing in mind that our per capita vaccine investment is similar to the US, the difference between their 9% and our 14% is interesting.
Some combination of the advantage of a centralised NHS for the task of mass vaccination and not having a disruptive political transition, perhaps. Be interesting to see to what extent, if any, the US manages to close the gap as the effects from the transition fade.
UK variant has mutated again, scientists say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55900625 ...Tests on some samples show a mutation, called E484K, already seen in the South Africa and Brazil variants that are of concern. Although this change may affect vaccine effectiveness, the current ones in use should still work, say experts...
Suggests that some parallel evolution is going on - which might mean that the useful mutations available to the virus in terms of evading our immune response are constrained in some way.
It did strike me that some of the "South African" variant found in the UK may well be home grown, rather than imported.
One thing I never see mentioned about all the global trade stuff is the impact on the government's Green agenda. With CPTTP and all the other global trade deals, presumably a higher proportion of our goods than currently are going to be imported/exported from/to much further afield. I assume that will increase our consumption of global resources, carbon footprint etc. Whereas the more goods we import/export from closer to home, the lower our impact on the environment. Or have I just go this wrong? I write this out of curiosity, rather than as a pro-European trade fan.
Yes you're wrong.
Science and technology, not abstinence, is the key to eliminating emissions.
Aviation emissions won't be eliminated by us refusing to fly, or not trading with others. Aviation emissions will be eliminated by developing clean technologies. In the words of the Prime Minister we need to achieve "Jet Zero".
Some "Environmentalists" wanted to stop emissions from cars by stopping people from driving. Serious environmentalists wanted to stop emissions from cars by developing clean car technology.
Money is being invested into developing clean aviation. Once that is rolled out, then it won't matter whether trade is local or the other side of the world.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
Hardly. Since the benefits of any the CPTPP Agreement, if we even get to join it, will be absolutely negligible, and no-one will have heard of it anyway, it's not exactly going to be the dominant issue of the next election.
There is a wider and much more important point here, which is what the UK should do about the catastrophic mess Boris has got us into, when we do eventually get a sane government again. I'm mulling an article on this question, which really hasn't received much attention. Watch this space!
Spoiler: I won't be recommending Rejoin.
Something of a hostage to fortune. Now, if Biden should have the US rejoin CPTPP.... A tricky ask for sure, but it could prove a handy bulwark against China.
The UK looks to be a real centre of excellence for vaccine research, development and manufacture - including the sequencing and so forth. We're also a reliable exporter, unlike some have been in this pandemic. Looks to me like we're the ideal place for truly global production.
Yep, although we weren't very big on vaccine production until the Vaccine Task Force (and some work before them) helped build the capacity.
It's not just about Covid-19 either; one thing the pandemic has done in no uncertain terms is raise global awareness of the importance of vaccines. It has also served as a major spur to innovation, rather as WWII did. We're going to be in a good position to be a global leader in this.
For once, state intervention in the UK has produced something very worthwhile. That's probably because it was focussed on the actual problem in hand, rather than the kind of secondary political considerations which generally bedevil state intervention.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
Very basically I believe it opens up the services markets of the member countries to services businesses from other member countries. More than that I don't know. Yes, they speak beautiful English in Europe so it's not a big issue but I still think it makes it a bit easier if letters and documents and stuff don't require translation.
For specific services including digital, but not banking though I think the UK might put that on the table.
There seems to be quite a lot of flexibility within the group, with countries deciding what to liberalise or not. That's a good thing I think. Hopefully our accession is swift - I think it could be very powerful.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Yes you only want to discuss selected data , we know you of old. I prefer to look at all the data and do not pick the small part that is good for my point. For sure I am certain you will never post anything positive about Scotland. I will continue to view your data in with that in mind, knowing it will at best be partial and slanted.
It's not about you or me - its about how well the SNP government is doing at rolling out vaccines.
"one of the countries/parties most talented MPs" is an absolute giveaway phrase that the astroturf accounts love to use.
They can't help themselves.
Its like how any time there's ever anything embarrassing comes out it is always a "senior" MP or "senior backbencher" that is saying it or has made the mess. Even when most of us politics geeks might then have to Google who this obscure MP is to find out who they are.
To be fair Joanna Cherry probably was the second most famous SNP MP after Blackford himself (and easily the best IMHO) but even if she was an unheard of nobody they would still say it.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
Scotland isn't, obviously most of the Unionists in Northern Ireland originally came from Scotland as settlers from the early 17th century on. Hence the Orange Order has a bigger presence in Glasgow than in London.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Yes, the EU has decided it wants to have more slices of one pizza, the US and UK have decided to simply order more pizzas.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
Bearing in mind that our per capita vaccine investment is similar to the US, the difference between their 9% and our 14% is interesting.
Some combination of the advantage of a centralised NHS for the task of mass vaccination and not having a disruptive political transition, perhaps. Be interesting to see to what extent, if any, the US manages to close the gap as the effects from the transition fade.
The US program is rather chaotic - you have the Federal/State split, plus Trump, plus high levels of demented anti-vax.
So the US ordered lots of vaccine. They have a very large, but disorganised and fragmented medical system - so lots and lots of people at the front end to give vaccinations.
From what I've been able to gather, the Federal part is a mess, but delivering vaccine. The State end is a mess, but generally getting the vaccine to people. The result is very very uneven.
A properly organised program would be able to do much more.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
The pandemic isn't going to be "under control" until the virus is eliminated and all social distancing measures have been entirely removed in full.
If it is possible for a pub or restaurant not just to be open (currently they're all closed afterall), but to be open normally with no social distancing measures. If we are eg able to safely go to a packed, crowded bar and have over a hundred people stood standing room only shoulder to shoulder watching Liverpool vs Manchester United then the pandemic is under control - if we can not, it is not.
Yes defeating the virus globally is necessary but that isn't done by sending what is internationally a tiny number of doses overseas, but to us a dramatic number of doses. Again 7 million doses would allow jabs for over 10% of our population but not even 0.1% of global population - you are an innumerate fool if you think vaccinating the world is possible at the expense of not vaccinating ourselves.
It isn't either/or we need to do both and the best way to do both is to finish the job here and then be able to work properly and afford to pay for the rest of the world. We don't need to send a few million doses that would let us finish the job here overseas, we need to finish the job here and send hundreds of millions of doses overseas.
The unfortunate "innumerate fool" comment arises from a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about where we have achieved a level of virus immunity and prevalence sufficiently high and low respectively to substantially reopen our society at a time when the global vaccine supply is limited and we through our sterling efforts have nailed down a disproportionate share of it. So then one can argue (as you are) that this is not job done and we should continue to prioritize ourselves and only ourselves. We should carry on vaccinating all the way down to 18, every adult, shoot for zero Covid and total domestic normality (but with closed borders), and not worry about the global situation until we've got there. Or one can argue it makes both ethical and practical sense to release stock and pipeline for use in places where the virus is rampant and likely to mutate in a malign direction. Both arguments are respectable. Neither is stupid or immoral. I prefer the 2nd for reasons I've explained many times.
Except it is illogical, false, immoral, unreasonable and bad for the entire world.
The world doesn't need a couple of million extra doses of vaccine from us. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
The UK is funding vaccinations for the rest of the world as a parallel track to our own vaccinations but that doesn't mean stopping our own vaccination scheme. Our own vaccines are for ourselves first and the only logical way to use them is domestically.
The simple fact of the matter is that the pandemic is costing us economically about £6 billion per week. If we could end the pandemic one week sooner in the UK then we would generate a saving of £6 billion for that week. Money that could go towards buying more vaccines for the entire world.
If you want two ways of looking at it then the choices are:
Stop vaccinating Brits, keep restrictions, keep economic support going for Brits, have low taxes due to a lack of domestic trade, continue to have deaths, send a few million vaccines overseas.
Finish vaccinating Brits, lift restrictions, gain taxes due to trade resurging, stop having deaths, have a Treasury billions of pounds per week better off, spend billions procuring hundreds of millions of vaccines overseas.
It is literally a no-brainer. One of those options is a win/win/win/win for everyone including the third world.
I clarified at length and with precision the scenario I'm talking about but alas to no avail. You again misunderstand - and it's not even a different misunderstanding it's the same one - and then off the back of that misunderstanding launch yet another stream of simplistic rhetoric restating exactly the same narrow ultra nationalistic view as you did in the previous post. I'm a busy man, Philip. I have an egg to boil and toast to make for soldiers.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
It just makes no rational sense - the same decision was reached in the end for christ's sake. I thought she was smart, she has a doctorate after all...
strange things the brits obsess about in the last two years or so
Chlorinated Chicken Fish Being too successful about vaccine procurement and start to worry about giving it away (FFS!) Whether one football team wins a match when nobody is watching at least live. Strange new ways to impose more restrictions on people (like outdoor mask wearing ) when covid-19 is reducing
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
The pandemic isn't going to be "under control" until the virus is eliminated and all social distancing measures have been entirely removed in full.
If it is possible for a pub or restaurant not just to be open (currently they're all closed afterall), but to be open normally with no social distancing measures. If we are eg able to safely go to a packed, crowded bar and have over a hundred people stood standing room only shoulder to shoulder watching Liverpool vs Manchester United then the pandemic is under control - if we can not, it is not.
Yes defeating the virus globally is necessary but that isn't done by sending what is internationally a tiny number of doses overseas, but to us a dramatic number of doses. Again 7 million doses would allow jabs for over 10% of our population but not even 0.1% of global population - you are an innumerate fool if you think vaccinating the world is possible at the expense of not vaccinating ourselves.
It isn't either/or we need to do both and the best way to do both is to finish the job here and then be able to work properly and afford to pay for the rest of the world. We don't need to send a few million doses that would let us finish the job here overseas, we need to finish the job here and send hundreds of millions of doses overseas.
The unfortunate "innumerate fool" comment arises from a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about where we have achieved a level of virus immunity and prevalence sufficiently high and low respectively to substantially reopen our society at a time when the global vaccine supply is limited and we through our sterling efforts have nailed down a disproportionate share of it. So then one can argue (as you are) that this is not job done and we should continue to prioritize ourselves and only ourselves. We should carry on vaccinating all the way down to 18, every adult, shoot for zero Covid and total domestic normality (but with closed borders), and not worry about the global situation until we've got there. Or one can argue it makes both ethical and practical sense to release stock and pipeline for use in places where the virus is rampant and likely to mutate in a malign direction. Both arguments are respectable. Neither is stupid or immoral. I prefer the 2nd for reasons I've explained many times.
Except it is illogical, false, immoral, unreasonable and bad for the entire world.
The world doesn't need a couple of million extra doses of vaccine from us. The world needs billions of doses of vaccine.
The UK is funding vaccinations for the rest of the world as a parallel track to our own vaccinations but that doesn't mean stopping our own vaccination scheme. Our own vaccines are for ourselves first and the only logical way to use them is domestically.
The simple fact of the matter is that the pandemic is costing us economically about £6 billion per week. If we could end the pandemic one week sooner in the UK then we would generate a saving of £6 billion for that week. Money that could go towards buying more vaccines for the entire world.
If you want two ways of looking at it then the choices are:
Stop vaccinating Brits, keep restrictions, keep economic support going for Brits, have low taxes due to a lack of domestic trade, continue to have deaths, send a few million vaccines overseas.
Finish vaccinating Brits, lift restrictions, gain taxes due to trade resurging, stop having deaths, have a Treasury billions of pounds per week better off, spend billions procuring hundreds of millions of vaccines overseas.
It is literally a no-brainer. One of those options is a win/win/win/win for everyone including the third world.
I clarified at length and with precision the scenario I'm talking about but alas to no avail. You again misunderstand - and it's not even a different misunderstanding it's the same one - and then off the back of that misunderstanding launch yet another stream of simplistic rhetoric restating exactly the same narrow ultra nationalistic view as you did in the previous post. I'm a busy man, Philip. I have an egg to boil and toast to make for soldiers.
Its not ultra-nationalistic to want the UK vaccinated and to want the UK funding hundreds of millions of doses for around the world.
It is idiotic and innumerate to want the opposite. There is no justification for it. You keep retreating on the scenario because what you're trying to propose is so moronic everyone regardless of politics is calling it out. The solution isn't fewer vaccines for everyone, the solution is more vaccines for everyone and there is only one path to get there: vaccinate everyone and fully fund production and distribution of vaccines globally.
If you can't put your hands up and admit you've called this one wrong then that's on you.
The UK should be fully vaccinated and pay to help fully vaccinate the world, the two goals are complimentary not going against each other.
Your twisted logic is like saying doctors should be denied a vaccine to give it to patients instead. You vaccinate the doctors because that is in the best interests of the patients - if the UK is being medic to the globe, funding, producing and distributing hundreds of millions of vaccines globally then the UK being vaccinated is in the globe's best interests.
One thing I never see mentioned about all the global trade stuff is the impact on the government's Green agenda. With CPTTP and all the other global trade deals, presumably a higher proportion of our goods than currently are going to be imported/exported from/to much further afield. I assume that will increase our consumption of global resources, carbon footprint etc. Whereas the more goods we import/export from closer to home, the lower our impact on the environment. Or have I just go this wrong? I write this out of curiosity, rather than as a pro-European trade fan.
Yes you're wrong.
Science and technology, not abstinence, is the key to eliminating emissions.
Aviation emissions won't be eliminated by us refusing to fly, or not trading with others. Aviation emissions will be eliminated by developing clean technologies. In the words of the Prime Minister we need to achieve "Jet Zero".
Some "Environmentalists" wanted to stop emissions from cars by stopping people from driving. Serious environmentalists wanted to stop emissions from cars by developing clean car technology.
Money is being invested into developing clean aviation. Once that is rolled out, then it won't matter whether trade is local or the other side of the world.
Thanks for the reply, especially the bluntness of "you're wrong". I do wish I had both the breadth of your knowledge and the depth of your self-righteous certainty on all matters, but I haven't. Maybe because I prefer humility over arrogance.
PS: I'm not at all sure that you provide proof that I'm wrong in the present rather than in the future.
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Yes, they did actually.
I think a lot of us missed that - what did they say and also when did they say it?
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Err...what?
'Let me interject some chalk into this cheese talk.'
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Yes - I thought that - though some of the actual members.............
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
But what happens in Scotland has a hell of an impact on NI, both in zeitgeist and in terms of a successful indyref.
One thing I never see mentioned about all the global trade stuff is the impact on the government's Green agenda. With CPTTP and all the other global trade deals, presumably a higher proportion of our goods than currently are going to be imported/exported from/to much further afield. I assume that will increase our consumption of global resources, carbon footprint etc. Whereas the more goods we import/export from closer to home, the lower our impact on the environment. Or have I just go this wrong? I write this out of curiosity, rather than as a pro-European trade fan.
Yes you're wrong.
Science and technology, not abstinence, is the key to eliminating emissions.
Aviation emissions won't be eliminated by us refusing to fly, or not trading with others. Aviation emissions will be eliminated by developing clean technologies. In the words of the Prime Minister we need to achieve "Jet Zero".
Some "Environmentalists" wanted to stop emissions from cars by stopping people from driving. Serious environmentalists wanted to stop emissions from cars by developing clean car technology.
Money is being invested into developing clean aviation. Once that is rolled out, then it won't matter whether trade is local or the other side of the world.
Thanks for the reply, especially the bluntness of "you're wrong". I do wish I had both the breadth of your knowledge and the depth of your self-righteous certainty on all matters, but I haven't. Maybe because I prefer humility over arrogance.
PS: I'm not at all sure that you provide proof that I'm wrong in the present rather than in the future.
If you don't want people to respond bluntly saying "you're wrong" then maybe not ask the blunt question "Or have I just go this wrong?"
You asked a blunt yes or no question and I answered your question and gave you the logic as to why.
I have given proof. The only way to eliminate emissions is to develop clean technologies, since we can't and won't globally eliminate travel. The UK could eliminate all its own air travel overnight and it would make no meaningful difference on global emissions because other countries won't follow us - but if we can help develop clean, zero-emission jet technology which we are investing in, then other countries can and will adopt that. In the same way as clean cars are displacing emitting cars.
If you don't think science and technology are the solution then how do you suggest the world is going to eliminate aviation emissions?
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Thankfully that alternative vision isn't going to happen (although the govt has played a blinder if they've managed to convince their supporters that they really are doing the UK first).
COVAX is attempting to make vaccine distribution more equitable, and will mean that some vaccines at least hit the developing world before rich countries like the UK are done. 50m available for delivery for Africa by April they forecast.
We could do better though if we held off vaccinating the least vulnerable in the UK, US, Europe etc. and shipped those doses to the more vulnerable. Plausibly save >1m lives.
But I can see that isn't feasible politically. At least we are doing better than just vaccinating rich countries first.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
I, for one, am greatly looking forwrd to frictionless ebay trading in Porsche parts with Vietnam and Chile. A bright future awaits us all if only we are fucking stupid enough to believe in it.
Does seem odd. Why are we pretending to be a Pacific Rim country?
Michelle O'Neill on -33% and Michael Martin on -21%.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
"Scotland is irrelevant to Northern Island" is the kind of hard hitting, clear headed political analysis I come here for.
On Friday when after Article 16 was revoked and before the European Commission retreated, when it was roundly criticised by the British Government, the Irish Government, the NI First Minister, Tories, Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Irish parties, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance . . . did the SNP have anything to say on the matter?
Yes, they did actually.
I think a lot of us missed that - what did they say and also when did they say it?
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
I would say that on the vaccine issue, the important point is that is not a choice between
- vaccinate the UK - vaccinate the world.
We can, should and almost certainly will, do both.
The old pizza economic metaphor applies here - it's not how much pizza that is currently on the table, it's about ordering more pizza.
Yes, the EU has decided it wants to have more slices of one pizza, the US and UK have decided to simply order more pizzas.
The contrast of those approaches is why the EU programme is stuck at 2-3% in similarly sized countries while we're at 14% and the US is at 9%.
Bearing in mind that our per capita vaccine investment is similar to the US, the difference between their 9% and our 14% is interesting.
Some combination of the advantage of a centralised NHS for the task of mass vaccination and not having a disruptive political transition, perhaps. Be interesting to see to what extent, if any, the US manages to close the gap as the effects from the transition fade.
The US program is rather chaotic - you have the Federal/State split, plus Trump, plus high levels of demented anti-vax.
So the US ordered lots of vaccine. They have a very large, but disorganised and fragmented medical system - so lots and lots of people at the front end to give vaccinations.
From what I've been able to gather, the Federal part is a mess, but delivering vaccine. The State end is a mess, but generally getting the vaccine to people. The result is very very uneven.
A properly organised program would be able to do much more.
The state that appears to have sorted itself out best is, remarkably, West Virgina.
strange things the brits obsess about in the last two years or so
Chlorinated Chicken Fish Being too successful about vaccine procurement and start to worry about giving it away (FFS!) Whether one football team wins a match when nobody is watching at least live. Strange new ways to impose more restrictions on people (like outdoor mask wearing ) when covid-19 is reducing
strange the way brits ignore all the important things, especially like staying alive
It just makes no rational sense - the same decision was reached in the end for christ's sake. I thought she was smart, she has a doctorate after all...
She didn't plagiarise her thesis. Someone else just recklessly published it before her.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
That's a good way of putting it. Although I would say "PB Tories" are about equally split and there are some capable of a bit of both. Which is ok. Ultra consistency is a sign of something untoward in a person.
Yes, one of the most (!) frequent PB contributors is a complex melange of Global Britain and Britain First, I rather think.
- Certainly is. We're getting a jolly good dose of it today too.
In good time we should be generous with out vaccines (especially with Ireland poorer nations) but only when we've vaccinated enough of our own people to significantly drive down the infection rate and ease the pressure on the NHS.
By about May we should be in a position to start sharing our vaccines hopefully.
This is what I'm saying. The alternative vision - no diversion until we have done everyone and have full domestic normality with near zero covid here and our borders closed to the world - does not appeal to me.
Thankfully that alternative vision isn't going to happen (although the govt has played a blinder if they've managed to convince their supporters that they really are doing the UK first).
COVAX is attempting to make vaccine distribution more equitable, and will mean that some vaccines at least hit the developing world before rich countries like the UK are done. 50m available for delivery for Africa by April they forecast.
We could do better though if we held off vaccinating the least vulnerable in the UK, US, Europe etc. and shipped those doses to the more vulnerable. Plausibly save >1m lives.
But I can see that isn't feasible politically. At least we are doing better than just vaccinating rich countries first.
No we could not, that would cost more lives globally not save lives.
Not vaccinating the least vulnerable in the UK would mean how many doses going to the rest of the world in your eyes? And how would that save >1m lives? And how much damage will that do to the economy and how many fewer doses would we be able to send overseas as a result of that damage?
"one of the countries/parties most talented MPs" is an absolute giveaway phrase that the astroturf accounts love to use.
They can't help themselves.
Its like how any time there's ever anything embarrassing comes out it is always a "senior" MP or "senior backbencher" that is saying it or has made the mess. Even when most of us politics geeks might then have to Google who this obscure MP is to find out who they are.
To be fair Joanna Cherry probably was the second most famous SNP MP after Blackford himself (and easily the best IMHO) but even if she was an unheard of nobody they would still say it.
Cherry was at least famous for being intelligent and doing something, Blackford is famous as a windbag.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Does anyone have an estimate for how long this may take?
Is performative xenophobia better or worse than just xenophobia?
That's also a rather silly tweet. Being in the EU, vaccines aside, is probably in our better interest but its certainly not merely a trade bloc. That's part of its pitch, about how much more integrated it is than a trade bloc.
Brexit supporters largely support free trade, were reluctant to get rid of the free trade aspects of the EU as a trade association, and many oppose protectionism like the EU protectionism against some of the world's poorest people. The vote gave everyone an impossible forced choice between two highly imperfect situations when a large majority wanted a reformed EU - not on the ballot.
Indeed. For myself and many others, Cameron's attempt at renegotiation with the EU proved that the organisation itself was unreformable, an inward-looking protectionist zone, rather than an enabler of global free trade.
CP-TPP is a free trade model for the future, an alliance of relatively wealthy nations committed to removing barriers to trade between them - without the political baggage that comes with EU membership. If we can get the USA involved, then even better.
Being locked into it also makes Rejoining the EU way, way harder.....
As some of those squealing about our joining CP-TPP realise.
Yes, I think this is starting to be realised now. The FBPE squad thought that a Labour victory in 2024 would be a route back to EU membership, and that they just needed to hold on to see their victory. It's now clear that the UK is going to sign a whole load of international agreements in the next couple of years that would be incompatible with EU membership, so rejoning would mean tearing up all these new trade agreements.
Puts SKS in a bit of a bind. "Would you withdraw the UK from the CP-TPP Agreement?"
I don't think it does. If rejoining the EU is popular he will simply say "yes". If it isn't, he will say "no". Nobody has any attachment to CPTPP and neither does it actually mean anything to ordinary people.
It doesn't yet. It remains to be seen how valuable this new agreement will be (if we accede successfully).
On the surface it does look great for the service industries though. Proximity doesn't matter for services that can be delivered digitally. If we look therefore at ease of doing business - language, culture, legal and political systems, we find a lot more potential there. As an example, NZ, Aus, Canada all speak English as their first language (Québec as the exception), and it is the language of business in Brunei and Singapore.
I don't have any knowledge on what CPTPP changes in regards to services to be honest. Care to explain?
Language is a red herring though. Almost every European professional speaks English enough to do business.
Very basically I believe it opens up the services markets of the member countries to services businesses from other member countries. More than that I don't know. Yes, they speak beautiful English in Europe so it's not a big issue but I still think it makes it a bit easier if letters and documents and stuff don't require translation.
For specific services including digital, but not banking though I think the UK might put that on the table.
UK being in the CP-TPP defnitely helps that organisation talk more about trade in services.
So what new evidence did the EMA have that the MHRA didn't? Or is she just talking utter bollocks?
Lets not forger the EMA were on holiday for 2 weeks of the time between authorizations and hadn't run rolling review, so claims of more in depth analysis seem unlikely.
Wacko conspiracy theories have only become legitimized because Remoaners banged on about Russia influencing the Brexit result for years.
Aye, I'm mea culpa-ed up to my oxters. I feel as early adopters of the meme that the 'voting for Scottish Indy would be doing Putin's bidding' chaps should share some of the blame though.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
G , your appetite for chlorinated chicken and hormone full beef surprises me?
As you are so good at numbers , could you oblige with the death rates and positivity rates for same countries , we can then do a real comparison of who is doing well rather than your Tory cult ideas of success.
Deflect, blame, ignore.
You don't want the Scottish government to improve its rate of vaccination?
I want them to improve of course, but yet again you highlight your bias with your selective numbers. I am happy that Scotland has lower death rate , lower positivity rate and lower vaccination rate. I look at the big picture , you on the other hand ignore the devastating other numbers and focus on the one good part. When we are all vaccinated , Scotland a week or so behind England but England still having 40% higher death rate and probably world champions, will you still be crowing.
Sounds like you are the one crowing about deaths in England. Unless you've got a time machine you can't change the past - all we can change is the present and the future - but you and the SNP seem very defensive over Scotland's slower vaccination rate, now the "care homes first" rationale has run out of road.
Trying to avoid the point yet again. Post the numbers or prove that you are a ne'er do well. I know for a fact you will not post the real data, cowards like you just hide in the shadows and post misinformation. Not very pleasant.
I'm sure you can google like anyone else - I'm not your data service. Yes, the death numbers in England are worse - for many reasons, some of which will be government (in)action, others will not.
The point is "where we are today" and "what we could do better". Which you don't want to engage with. Lets hope the new "super centres" in Aberdeen & Edinburgh pick up the pace, but there's a lot of pace to pick up.
Yes you only want to discuss selected data , we know you of old. I prefer to look at all the data and do not pick the small part that is good for my point. For sure I am certain you will never post anything positive about Scotland. I will continue to view your data in with that in mind, knowing it will at best be partial and slanted.
It's not about you or me - its about how well the SNP government is doing at rolling out vaccines.
Well go then regale us on how well England is doing on deaths then. You only select certain items that are bad for Scotland , you ignore all the good data and do the converse for England. Trying to make out that your odd choice is the only topic to be considered is a pathetic attempt at hiding your hatred for Scotland. I will never see you ever post anything positive about Scotland. It is all about you and your bitter twisted hatred of Scotland, not good for your health all that bile and bitterness.
It strikes me that there are two different, and not easily reconcilable, ideologies at the heart of this government (and on PB): Global Britain, and Britain First. These ideologies are being played out in the vaccination debate, on post-Brexit Britain, on Scottish nationalism (England First, rather than Britain First), and elsewhere in government.
So Global Britain is the outward-looking, vaccine sharing, Liz Truss trade vision, Hong Kong migrants welcoming type of vision that I suspect the PM favours.
Britain First is the vaccine hoarding, EU-hating, migrant Channel-crossing anxious, sod off Scotland, nationalistic vision of much of the Tory Party membership and beloved by most of the tabloids.
While both visions are represented by PB Tories, being the civilised bunch they are most favour Global Britain.
I suspect the government will struggle to hold this coalition together as time goes on, and it gives opposition parties an opportunity to (to coin a phrase) develop a third way that mediates between, and away from, these stark choices.
Just to confirm I am very much in the Global Britain cohort and credit Liz Truss for her successes and her formal application yesterday to join TPP
Can you spot the deliberate mistake with the grouping Liz is trying to join
'It is a trade agreement between 11 Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam'.
Liz Truss should get together with Gavin Williamson. They can form a new MENSA group in the Tory Party
Your last sentence is disgusting
Using mental health to make an argument is so low but then why am I surprised
And when the US joins TPP this group of countries will see a huge increase in tariff free trade
MENSA is a measure of intelligence, not mental health. What are you on about?
Yes - I thought that - though some of the actual members.............
Every week of this pandemic costs the UK economy £6bn 0.5% of GDP goes to foreign aid. Therefore every week the pandemic ravashes the UK costs the foreign aid budget £30m
£30m is enough to pay for about 10-15m doses of Astrazeneca vaccine.
So every week the UK isn't fully vaccinated costs overseas the equivalent of 10-15 million vaccine doses? Why would you want to deny that money to the rest of the world?
The developing world is better off if we are fully vaccinated and using our strength at full capacity to vaccinate others. That will save millions of lives globally.
I don't know quite how accurate this is - though it seems entirely plausible. The EU delay was not about safety at all, but rather allocation liability should anything go wrong. There is a mismatch between a supranational body doing the negotiation, and individual states waiving manufacturers' liability and shouldering it themselves (as the UK and US did). There is also a parallel with the Eurozone crisis.
We are not there yet but if (i) vaccines are in limited supply and (ii) the UK has vaccinated sufficiently to control the virus and substantially reopen, it not IMMORAL (in fact it is quite the contrary) to argue that the priority should then be in countries where the virus is raging.
Furthermore this is the most rational approach for a global pandemic. It must be defeated globally otherwise it will be back to bite us with vicious imported mutations and we will be stuck in this twilight world for years.
The header is great but is playing to the gallery.
As Cyclefree and others have said, it would be 100% immoral.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
Comments
And designed to distract from their vaccine contracts debacle.
Nicola Sturgeon +29
Worth a chortle in anyone’s currency.
https://twitter.com/UKGovScotland/status/1356573083155324931?s=20
UK variant has mutated again, scientists say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55900625
...Tests on some samples show a mutation, called E484K, already seen in the South Africa and Brazil variants that are of concern.
Although this change may affect vaccine effectiveness, the current ones in use should still work, say experts...
Suggests that some parallel evolution is going on - which might mean that the useful mutations available to the virus in terms of evading our immune response are constrained in some way.
The highest rating is +63% for Health Minister and former UUP leader Robin Swann, Sturgeon's rating is largely irrelevant as she is Scottish not Northern Irish and not part of either the UK or Irish governments
Daily Mail falls for Fake news.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9213551/Myanmar-coup-Woman-performs-exercise-video-without-noticing-troops-her.html
Getting there - in stages. I think many Remainers haven't quite travelled that far yet.
We both seem to have family health issues at present
I just don't see how these internal ructions could threaten her given those sorts of numbers.
Given the world needs billions of doses, not millions of doses; given that getting full normality here means we can send more hundreds of millions of doses to the rest of the world rather than just a couple of million to the rest of the world . . .
. . . why do you want to hurt the rest of the world by not finishing the job here?
Some combination of the advantage of a centralised NHS for the task of mass vaccination and not having a disruptive political transition, perhaps. Be interesting to see to what extent, if any, the US manages to close the gap as the effects from the transition fade.
They can't help themselves.
Science and technology, not abstinence, is the key to eliminating emissions.
Aviation emissions won't be eliminated by us refusing to fly, or not trading with others. Aviation emissions will be eliminated by developing clean technologies. In the words of the Prime Minister we need to achieve "Jet Zero".
Some "Environmentalists" wanted to stop emissions from cars by stopping people from driving. Serious environmentalists wanted to stop emissions from cars by developing clean car technology.
Money is being invested into developing clean aviation. Once that is rolled out, then it won't matter whether trade is local or the other side of the world.
It's not just about Covid-19 either; one thing the pandemic has done in no uncertain terms is raise global awareness of the importance of vaccines. It has also served as a major spur to innovation, rather as WWII did. We're going to be in a good position to be a global leader in this.
For once, state intervention in the UK has produced something very worthwhile. That's probably because it was focussed on the actual problem in hand, rather than the kind of secondary political considerations which generally bedevil state intervention.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1356554942954303494?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1356554947664429056?s=20
To be fair Joanna Cherry probably was the second most famous SNP MP after Blackford himself (and easily the best IMHO) but even if she was an unheard of nobody they would still say it.
However Sturgeon is
So the US ordered lots of vaccine. They have a very large, but disorganised and fragmented medical system - so lots and lots of people at the front end to give vaccinations.
From what I've been able to gather, the Federal part is a mess, but delivering vaccine. The State end is a mess, but generally getting the vaccine to people. The result is very very uneven.
A properly organised program would be able to do much more.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1356574293447090178?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1356575671397609473?s=20
Why are people picking on this gentle creature?
Chlorinated Chicken
Fish
Being too successful about vaccine procurement and start to worry about giving it away (FFS!)
Whether one football team wins a match when nobody is watching at least live.
Strange new ways to impose more restrictions on people (like outdoor mask wearing ) when covid-19 is reducing
It is idiotic and innumerate to want the opposite. There is no justification for it. You keep retreating on the scenario because what you're trying to propose is so moronic everyone regardless of politics is calling it out. The solution isn't fewer vaccines for everyone, the solution is more vaccines for everyone and there is only one path to get there: vaccinate everyone and fully fund production and distribution of vaccines globally.
If you can't put your hands up and admit you've called this one wrong then that's on you.
The UK should be fully vaccinated and pay to help fully vaccinate the world, the two goals are complimentary not going against each other.
Your twisted logic is like saying doctors should be denied a vaccine to give it to patients instead. You vaccinate the doctors because that is in the best interests of the patients - if the UK is being medic to the globe, funding, producing and distributing hundreds of millions of vaccines globally then the UK being vaccinated is in the globe's best interests.
PS: I'm not at all sure that you provide proof that I'm wrong in the present rather than in the future.
'Let me interject some chalk into this cheese talk.'
You asked a blunt yes or no question and I answered your question and gave you the logic as to why.
I have given proof. The only way to eliminate emissions is to develop clean technologies, since we can't and won't globally eliminate travel. The UK could eliminate all its own air travel overnight and it would make no meaningful difference on global emissions because other countries won't follow us - but if we can help develop clean, zero-emission jet technology which we are investing in, then other countries can and will adopt that. In the same way as clean cars are displacing emitting cars.
If you don't think science and technology are the solution then how do you suggest the world is going to eliminate aviation emissions?
COVAX is attempting to make vaccine distribution more equitable, and will mean that some vaccines at least hit the developing world before rich countries like the UK are done. 50m available for delivery for Africa by April they forecast.
We could do better though if we held off vaccinating the least vulnerable in the UK, US, Europe etc. and shipped those doses to the more vulnerable. Plausibly save >1m lives.
But I can see that isn't feasible politically. At least we are doing better than just vaccinating rich countries first.
Is it to escape the weather?
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1356582675331633152
Not vaccinating the least vulnerable in the UK would mean how many doses going to the rest of the world in your eyes? And how would that save >1m lives? And how much damage will that do to the economy and how many fewer doses would we be able to send overseas as a result of that damage?
Germany recently bought 200,000 doses of these at huge cost
I feel as early adopters of the meme that the 'voting for Scottish Indy would be doing Putin's bidding' chaps should share some of the blame though.
Trying to make out that your odd choice is the only topic to be considered is a pathetic attempt at hiding your hatred for Scotland.
I will never see you ever post anything positive about Scotland. It is all about you and your bitter twisted hatred of Scotland, not good for your health all that bile and bitterness.
As a diversion whilst I kartoffel, my favourite drawing of positives was over on LDV:
"An example from the EU on what to do when you screw up"
Very good comments, though:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/an-example-from-the-eu-on-what-to-do-when-you-screw-up-66872.html
0.5% of GDP goes to foreign aid.
Therefore every week the pandemic ravashes the UK costs the foreign aid budget £30m
£30m is enough to pay for about 10-15m doses of Astrazeneca vaccine.
So every week the UK isn't fully vaccinated costs overseas the equivalent of 10-15 million vaccine doses? Why would you want to deny that money to the rest of the world?
The developing world is better off if we are fully vaccinated and using our strength at full capacity to vaccinate others. That will save millions of lives globally.
The EU delay was not about safety at all, but rather allocation liability should anything go wrong.
There is a mismatch between a supranational body doing the negotiation, and individual states waiving manufacturers' liability and shouldering it themselves (as the UK and US did).
There is also a parallel with the Eurozone crisis.
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1356573189309149185
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1356573194497499137
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1356573200621125633
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1356573202118492169
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1356573204953911296
It's a long thread, so I've only linked a few posts, but worth reading in its entirety.
The UK vaccines are owned collectively by the UK population, who as both citizens and taxpayers have paid for and are entitled to receive their share. To take away that share from the younger half without their consent - as both you and the WHO have proposed - is to perpetrate a theft upon them, plain and simple. And not just the usual socialist theft of income or assets - which is bad enough, but which after all is only money - but a theft of their freedom, their physical and mental health, their ability to breathe easily and live normal lives.
That the proponents of such a theft include those who would receive their doses themselves before merrily giving away those of others is more than immoral - it's sick. I don't see any of them volunteering to have their doses sent overseas right now to protect the elderly in poor countries with no healthcare system at all, which is what they would be arguing for if they wished to accept the logical consequences of their lofty 'moral' stance rather than have the young pay the price for their ideals.
And clearly no interest whatsoever in UK rejoining as every time she opens her mouth she buries any chance even further to be honest.