Just read the the BoE has kept interest rates at 0.1%.but as warned negative rates are coming. What effect will negative rates have ?
One effect will be me crying like a disgraced televangelist.
Savers are a persecuted minority.
Not really - half the purpose of this monetary policy is to keep stock markets rolling, so savers just have to be in the asset classes they're being directed towards and they're still doing fine.
Yes and never mind this discriminates against poorer, unsophisticated savers and favours rich equity investors like, erm, PBers and anyone else who has heard of half the firms George Osborne worked for.
If an economy propped up by cheap-as-chips money and smoke & mirrors QE for over a decade now requires interest rates to go negative to avoid a slump, that feels to me like something inevitable and extremely harrowing is merely being postponed a little longer.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Still not sure what happens to the 4.5m who say "Nope....". That's quite a sump for reinfection come the autumn.
And of course the demographic of people most likely to suffer the worst with COVID are the ones refusing the vaccine.
Yes and no. Some will have had Covid. And herd immunity doesn't require everyone to get jabbed, just enough to prevent significant onward progression. And maybe some of them will change their mind when they start finding some places say vaccinated only please...
Days to target 11 Yesterday's rate 469,016 Required rate 409,955 ( ↓ from 414,877 yesterday)
The only way they'll miss it is if there is a supply issue.
Confirmed in statement to the house they have full visibility on supply to hit. Of course that target is based on 100% take up which they're not getting so in practice they're pretty comfortably on course
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Still not sure what happens to the 4.5m who say "Nope....". That's quite a sump for reinfection come the autumn.
If they get 85% take up the R should still stay below 1 so everytime someone brings the virus in from abroad it'll have a tough job finding enough potential carriers in a row before hitting a dead-end
Just read the the BoE has kept interest rates at 0.1%.but as warned negative rates are coming. What effect will negative rates have ?
One effect will be me crying like a disgraced televangelist.
Savers are a persecuted minority.
Not really - half the purpose of this monetary policy is to keep stock markets rolling, so savers just have to be in the asset classes they're being directed towards and they're still doing fine.
Yes and never mind this discriminates against poorer, unsophisticated savers and favours rich equity investors like, erm, PBers and anyone else who has heard of half the firms George Osborne worked for.
If an economy propped up by cheap-as-chips money and smoke & mirrors QE for over a decade now requires interest rates to go negative to avoid a slump, that feels to me like something inevitable and extremely harrowing is merely being postponed a little longer.
And you would be absolutely correct in that assumption. 100% correct.
Sunak, and the recovery group, are desperately, desperately, trying to save something from the carnage that is about to ensue.
I love the word 'problematic'. It's like 'inappropriate'
It's nicely understated.
Should it not be problematical? I always think people sound a bit stupid when they say it for that reason. Of course, if I'm wrong, the only stupid one is me.
Understatement used to be an art form much favoured by the ad industry
Hmm. That's actually going to be slightly underwhelming I think.
Will end up being pretty much bang on the required rate – I was hoping for a bumper couple of days, given the widespread snowy weather forecast for next week.
Friday through to Sunday are the days where we will hopefully smash the run-rate. If the other 4 days of the week average around the 400k daily mark then we should make the Feb 15th target with 2 or 3 days to spare.
Also, does it REALLY matter if we miss the target by a day or two? No. The govt has - in this case - done a fantastic job.
When the target was announced I remember many on here (and many amongst my friends) scoffing with derision at the mere idea they'd achieve this. Now it looks certain they will do it, or get as near as dammit, so it doesn't matter.
The main thing is to KEEP IT UP so we can vax all priority groups - ie ME - by mid March. Then we are really set to have sex again, sorry, open up the country.
More than KEEP IT UP, need to go to infinity and beyond. 1 million a day capacity should be the aim.
As we did with testing.
Also, as with testing, I doubt we will reach 1m a day, but - like testing - 600-700,000 should be doable. 1% of the country every day, for day after day.
We've already had a 600k day, so I would really hope that we'll hit 1m some days.
Have we got to the bottom of why the final day each week is always the highest, yet?
I could understand Sat/Sun being lower. But why are some weekdays so much lower than others, consistently?
Could that be a reporting artifact? Someone stays a bit late on Friday getting the data up-to-date, because they know that otherwise they won't have another chance until Monday.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
He doesn’t like it. Therefore it is obviously wrong. And without it, everything would be fine, it would be fine, honest it would be fine. Accordingly, the only reason that anyone in authority would apply it must be that they are being fooled or compelled by a conspiracy of scientists. Everything must be twisted to fit into that view.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
He doesn’t like it. Therefore it is obviously wrong. And without it, everything would be fine, it would be fine, honest it would be fine. Accordingly, the only reason that anyone in authority would apply it must be that they are being fooled or compelled by a conspiracy of scientists. Everything must be twisted to fit into that view.
I`m with you but, to be fair, Contrarian is not saying "everything will be fine". Rather, he is saying "everything is not fine but we must carry on with our lives regardless because this is not all about health".
200k signatures to give Captain Tom a state funeral.
Isn't this all getting a bit much now?
Yes, that is OTT. And not a Captain Tom point but I'm also getting a bit conflicted at seeing people with major health problems embarking on public feats of endurance to raise money for the NHS.
Hmm. That's actually going to be slightly underwhelming I think.
Will end up being pretty much bang on the required rate – I was hoping for a bumper couple of days, given the widespread snowy weather forecast for next week.
Friday through to Sunday are the days where we will hopefully smash the run-rate. If the other 4 days of the week average around the 400k daily mark then we should make the Feb 15th target with 2 or 3 days to spare.
Also, does it REALLY matter if we miss the target by a day or two? No. The govt has - in this case - done a fantastic job.
When the target was announced I remember many on here (and many amongst my friends) scoffing with derision at the mere idea they'd achieve this. Now it looks certain they will do it, or get as near as dammit, so it doesn't matter.
The main thing is to KEEP IT UP so we can vax all priority groups - ie ME - by mid March. Then we are really set to have sex again, sorry, open up the country.
More than KEEP IT UP, need to go to infinity and beyond. 1 million a day capacity should be the aim.
As we did with testing.
Also, as with testing, I doubt we will reach 1m a day, but - like testing - 600-700,000 should be doable. 1% of the country every day, for day after day.
We've already had a 600k day, so I would really hope that we'll hit 1m some days.
Have we got to the bottom of why the final day each week is always the highest, yet?
I could understand Sat/Sun being lower. But why are some weekdays so much lower than others, consistently?
Could that be a reporting artifact? Someone stays a bit late on Friday getting the data up-to-date, because they know that otherwise they won't have another chance until Monday.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Part of the deficit is of Sunak`s own making. His packages are poorly targeted. Some people missed out entirely while many others are feeling very flush at the moment. It`s easy to dish it out but a bugger to get it back again.
Would you class soreness where you have just been jabbed with a needle a side-effect of the vaccine?
Even if that is the correct way to record it it seems tailor made for reporting misunderstands.
The old anti-vaxxers like Macron will love to tell everybody how 1 in 3 people get side-effects.
Not to support Manu - who I've gone right off for now - but just to report on my experience of the jab. It's well known that I haven't had it but my parents have (age) and so has my brother and partner (health workers). Oxford and Pfizer respectively. All 4 of them felt rough for 48 hours afterwards. Like a quick flu. I don't know how common that is but it's 100% for my sample.
Yeah my parents both had mild side effects. My mum has the Pfizer jab and she had a dead arm, headache and mild temperature for the next few days. My mum said my dad had a full blown case of man flu after his AZ jab.
Not quite man flu in my case but limb-, back- and head-aches. No elevated temperature. Greatly relieved by woollie long-johns.
My experience after AZN was a blinding headache and 8 hours of vomiting. It was very similar to a bad migraine. Others I know who had it at the same time all suffered headaches but none was sick. It makes me wonder if a history of migraine makes you more susceptible, but that is mere speculation on my part.
200k signatures to give Captain Tom a state funeral.
Isn't this all getting a bit much now?
Yes, that is OTT. And not a Captain Tom point but I'm also getting a bit conflicted at seeing people with major health problems embarking on public feats of endurance to raise money for the NHS.
Bit like with child campaigners. Teens is probably fine, but go too young and it feels like you listen to them like you would a child preacher taught to parrot lines, because it's an impressive spectacle.
Would you class soreness where you have just been jabbed with a needle a side-effect of the vaccine?
Even if that is the correct way to record it it seems tailor made for reporting misunderstands.
The old anti-vaxxers like Macron will love to tell everybody how 1 in 3 people get side-effects.
Not to support Manu - who I've gone right off for now - but just to report on my experience of the jab. It's well known that I haven't had it but my parents have (age) and so has my brother and partner (health workers). Oxford and Pfizer respectively. All 4 of them felt rough for 48 hours afterwards. Like a quick flu. I don't know how common that is but it's 100% for my sample.
Yeah my parents both had mild side effects. My mum has the Pfizer jab and she had a dead arm, headache and mild temperature for the next few days. My mum said my dad had a full blown case of man flu after his AZ jab.
Not quite man flu in my case but limb-, back- and head-aches. No elevated temperature. Greatly relieved by woollie long-johns.
My experience after AZN was a blinding headache and 8 hours of vomiting. It was very similar to a bad migraine. Others I know who had it at the same time all suffered headaches but none was sick. It makes me wonder if a history of migraine makes you more susceptible, but that is mere speculation on my part.
Sounds awful - well, pain for gain at least, but still sucks.
Just read the the BoE has kept interest rates at 0.1%.but as warned negative rates are coming. What effect will negative rates have ?
One effect will be me crying like a disgraced televangelist.
Savers are a persecuted minority.
Not really - half the purpose of this monetary policy is to keep stock markets rolling, so savers just have to be in the asset classes they're being directed towards and they're still doing fine.
Yes and never mind this discriminates against poorer, unsophisticated savers and favours rich equity investors like, erm, PBers and anyone else who has heard of half the firms George Osborne worked for.
If an economy propped up by cheap-as-chips money and smoke & mirrors QE for over a decade now requires interest rates to go negative to avoid a slump, that feels to me like something inevitable and extremely harrowing is merely being postponed a little longer.
And you would be absolutely correct in that assumption. 100% correct.
Sunak, and the recovery group, are desperately, desperately, trying to save something from the carnage that is about to ensue.
I fear they are already too late.
With hindsight, maybe QE did not work. Or possibly QE did work to save the banks (and that was the immediate problem because it really was necessary to save the banks) but failed to resurrect the economy and maybe we should have switched to Keynesian paying men to dig holes and other men to fill in holes. You could argue that both George Osborne (Northern Powerhouse) and Boris (levelling up) were at least talking a good fight even if nothing came of it.
Sir Keir Starmer has denied reports he had a heated confrontation with Boris Johnson after the pair clashed during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The Labour leader told broadcasters on a visit to an NHS vaccination centre in Watford that the reports - which claimed he was led away from Johnson - were untrue and that he and the PM merely continued their discussion of issues raised during the weekly exchange.
The Labour leader used his visit to the Watford centre - which is set up in the corner of a large Asda supermarket - to suggest the government was in "chaos" over what to do about people arriving from abroad.
"I'm really worried about the chaos and confusion on the government's borders policy," Starmer said, adding: "We're in a race now - virus against vaccination. Let's secure our borders."
----
I remember when the tw@tterati were outraged that Boris went to some vaccination centres....Starmer seems to go to even more than him.
One thing not being picked up on, yesterday Team Red were complaining that the mass testing for Saffers COVID wasn't covering a wide enough area. Today, Team Red in Wales, have side oh no we aren't going to mass test for it, although we have some community transmission cases.
Was Starmer wearing a Union flag at the vaccine centre? A poor effort if he wasn't.
Union Balaclava pictured in the snow tomorrow.
Labour supposed to be in partnership with union movement
SirAbstainalot got hold of the wrong end of the stick or should i say flagpole
Anyway I know @uklabour can win in 2024 without any left wing voters because SO/Jonathon/CHB on here
say so* Flag Shaggers will be flocking our way because its really believable that we are the party of the flag
*and without members, Scotland, Wales, or anyone under 40 to boot we will waltz home.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
As if I would ever say something like that! For all I know, Britain may well need and want a mainstream party of the left; it just doesn't seem all that keen on electing one to power.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
He doesn’t like it. Therefore it is obviously wrong. And without it, everything would be fine, it would be fine, honest it would be fine. Accordingly, the only reason that anyone in authority would apply it must be that they are being fooled or compelled by a conspiracy of scientists. Everything must be twisted to fit into that view.
I`m with you but, to be fair, Contrarian is not saying "everything will be fine". Rather, he is saying "everything is not fine but we must carry on with our lives regardless because this is not all about health".
Contrarian is remarkably reticent to state how many people he thinks have died of Covid and how many he thinks would die of we lifted restrictions.
Would you class soreness where you have just been jabbed with a needle a side-effect of the vaccine?
Even if that is the correct way to record it it seems tailor made for reporting misunderstands.
The old anti-vaxxers like Macron will love to tell everybody how 1 in 3 people get side-effects.
Not to support Manu - who I've gone right off for now - but just to report on my experience of the jab. It's well known that I haven't had it but my parents have (age) and so has my brother and partner (health workers). Oxford and Pfizer respectively. All 4 of them felt rough for 48 hours afterwards. Like a quick flu. I don't know how common that is but it's 100% for my sample.
Yeah my parents both had mild side effects. My mum has the Pfizer jab and she had a dead arm, headache and mild temperature for the next few days. My mum said my dad had a full blown case of man flu after his AZ jab.
Not quite man flu in my case but limb-, back- and head-aches. No elevated temperature. Greatly relieved by woollie long-johns.
My experience after AZN was a blinding headache and 8 hours of vomiting. It was very similar to a bad migraine. Others I know who had it at the same time all suffered headaches but none was sick. It makes me wonder if a history of migraine makes you more susceptible, but that is mere speculation on my part.
Sounds awful - well, pain for gain at least, but still sucks.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Still not sure what happens to the 4.5m who say "Nope....". That's quite a sump for reinfection come the autumn.
If they get 85% take up the R should still stay below 1 so everytime someone brings the virus in from abroad it'll have a tough job finding enough potential carriers in a row before hitting a dead-end
I don't think that's a given as we don't know just how high the unrestricted R would be before factoring in the vaccines. We've had places doubling or even tripling cases in a week despite still very significant restrictions and many people locking themselves down voluntarily.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
He doesn’t like it. Therefore it is obviously wrong. And without it, everything would be fine, it would be fine, honest it would be fine. Accordingly, the only reason that anyone in authority would apply it must be that they are being fooled or compelled by a conspiracy of scientists. Everything must be twisted to fit into that view.
I`m with you but, to be fair, Contrarian is not saying "everything will be fine". Rather, he is saying "everything is not fine but we must carry on with our lives regardless because this is not all about health".
He does always make the implicit leap that without lockdown, the economy would be fine, people would be interacting, and our lives could go on unchanged. It's behind every one of his posts against lockdown. That if we just ripped off the splint and the cast, we would be able to run free again.
We know that's not the case. Robert has pointed out time and again that it doesn't happen that way in no-lockdown places.
Hell, the numbers have shown (and I checked them because I hate taking things on trust) that restaurant footfall in the UK dropped less than it did in no-lockdown States in the US - because the lockdowns worked to decrease the prevalence and fear to the point people would use them more freely again.
And time and again, he ignores that point whenever it is made. He ignores that Government are aware of that point. He ignores that many economists have made that point. He just blithely insists that we'd be fine economically and socially if we just threw off the shackles of lockdown, ignoring that the pandemic itself is the key issue. And accuses others of being blind, or ignoring the costs.
Not sure this is just an issue about NI any more. There is a piece running today on the local news in the Southwest about how unhappy the fishermen are to have been 'sold out' by brexit. In the end the lies were always going to catch up on the leavers. Problem is that it is now too late to prevent the damage to the country and someone will have to pay the price.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Part of the deficit is of Sunak`s own making. His packages are poorly targeted. Some people missed out entirely while many others are feeling very flush at the moment. It`s easy to dish it out but a bugger to get it back again.
There is no doubt that Britain would have taken a big hit to its finances whatever the government did. Big hit
But there are, undoubtedly, doing to be winners and losers. Some economies have shrunk less than four per cent. for others, its touching double digit.
and that means its going to be easier for some to recover than others. Much, much easier.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Ah, the Brecht solution:
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?
Not often expressed as clearly as our very own @kinabalu expresses it.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Ah, the Brecht solution:
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?
Not often expressed as clearly as our very own @kinabalu expresses it.
And then they wonder why said electorate is convinced that Labour hates them...
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Part of the deficit is of Sunak`s own making. His packages are poorly targeted. Some people missed out entirely while many others are feeling very flush at the moment. It`s easy to dish it out but a bugger to get it back again.
There is no doubt that Britain would have taken a big hit to its finances whatever the government did. Big hit
But there are, undoubtedly, doing to be winners and losers. Some economies have shrunk less than four per cent. for others, its touching double digit.
and that means its going to be easier for some to recover than others. Much, much easier.
Re GDP - listen to recent edition of More or Less. Can`t reliably compare GDP across nations because there are big difference in how service worker pandemic productivity is factored in.
Some countries (e.g. Spain) have made no adjustment. UK has applied a large reduction in output for key groups inc teachers. Consequently our figures are more honest while others are producing GDP figures that don`t fully reflect the pandemic effect.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
As if I would ever say something like that! For all I know, Britain may well need and want a mainstream party of the left; it just doesn't seem all that keen on electing one to power.
This is a betting site uber alles so I say again a factoid which imo should be etched in people's brains for the long term.
In the early hours of the morning following GE17 a certain Jeremy Corbyn - not just left wing but a lifelong member of the HARD left - went odds on favourite in running to be the next Prime Minister of this country.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
As if I would ever say something like that! For all I know, Britain may well need and want a mainstream party of the left; it just doesn't seem all that keen on electing one to power.
This is a betting site uber alles so I say again a factoid which imo should be etched in people's brains for the long term.
In the early hours of the morning following GE17 a certain Jeremy Corbyn - not just left wing but a lifelong member of the HARD left - went odds on favourite in running to be the next Prime Minister of this country.
Think on.
And then what happened next? Anyone taking that bet would have lost their money.
Just read the the BoE has kept interest rates at 0.1%.but as warned negative rates are coming. What effect will negative rates have ?
One effect will be me crying like a disgraced televangelist.
Savers are a persecuted minority.
Not really - half the purpose of this monetary policy is to keep stock markets rolling, so savers just have to be in the asset classes they're being directed towards and they're still doing fine.
Yes and never mind this discriminates against poorer, unsophisticated savers and favours rich equity investors like, erm, PBers and anyone else who has heard of half the firms George Osborne worked for.
If an economy propped up by cheap-as-chips money and smoke & mirrors QE for over a decade now requires interest rates to go negative to avoid a slump, that feels to me like something inevitable and extremely harrowing is merely being postponed a little longer.
And you would be absolutely correct in that assumption. 100% correct.
Sunak, and the recovery group, are desperately, desperately, trying to save something from the carnage that is about to ensue.
I fear they are already too late.
With hindsight, maybe QE did not work. Or possibly QE did work to save the banks (and that was the immediate problem because it really was necessary to save the banks) but failed to resurrect the economy and maybe we should have switched to Keynesian paying men to dig holes and other men to fill in holes. You could argue that both George Osborne (Northern Powerhouse) and Boris (levelling up) were at least talking a good fight even if nothing came of it.
QE worked in the sense that it avoided economic collapse and helped restore confidence in the markets. But it is surprising how little its pernicious longer term effects are talked about in both political and economic circles; the asset price inflation it inexorably created is a principal reason for the yawning gap between the generations and between the rich and the rest.
Because QE acted invisibly and no-one really understands or sees it happening, its political cost has proved negligible. Free money that avoids economic pain and comes with no political cost is like crack cocaine designed especially for politicians, and it is no surprise that every attempt to go cold turkey has so far failed.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
It's going your way. 2015 Yougov has GB all age groups very+fairly at 67% so there has been no Brexit surge.
I have a lot of sympathy with this 22 year old writing shortly before dying in France in 1944
"Don’t get me wrong though, Mom, I am no flag-waving patriot…England’s a great little country – the best there is – but I cannot honestly say that it is ‘worth fighting for’. Nor can I fancy myself in the role of a gallant crusader fighting for the liberation of Europe. It would be a nice thought but I would only be kidding myself. No, Mom, my little world is centred around you and including Dad, everyone at home, and my friends at W[olverhamp]ton – That is worth fighting for – and if by doing so it strengthens your security and improves your lot in any way, then it is worth dying for too."
And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
As if I would ever say something like that! For all I know, Britain may well need and want a mainstream party of the left; it just doesn't seem all that keen on electing one to power.
This is a betting site uber alles so I say again a factoid which imo should be etched in people's brains for the long term.
In the early hours of the morning following GE17 a certain Jeremy Corbyn - not just left wing but a lifelong member of the HARD left - went odds on favourite in running to be the next Prime Minister of this country.
Think on.
And then what happened next? Anyone taking that bet would have lost their money.
Sheepish confession, I profited because I took the other side. But you take my point. Do not go thinking Labour cannot win a GE here - and soon - from the left. It's sterile, sloppy groupthink. They can. They totally can.
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Part of the deficit is of Sunak`s own making. His packages are poorly targeted. Some people missed out entirely while many others are feeling very flush at the moment. It`s easy to dish it out but a bugger to get it back again.
There is no doubt that Britain would have taken a big hit to its finances whatever the government did. Big hit
But there are, undoubtedly, doing to be winners and losers. Some economies have shrunk less than four per cent. for others, its touching double digit.
and that means its going to be easier for some to recover than others. Much, much easier.
Re GDP - listen to recent edition of More or Less. Can`t reliably compare GDP across nations because there are big difference in how service worker pandemic productivity is factored in.
Some countries (e.g. Spain) have made no adjustment. UK has applied a large reduction in output for key groups inc teachers. Consequently our figures are more honest while others are producing GDP figures that don`t fully reflect the pandemic effect.
Yes, I heard that too. The bottom line was that if other countries had made the same assumed reductions to GDP reflecting lower education and health outputs that we have, most major western countries would have come out with around the same reduction. Which is plausible, when you consider that the general level of economic activity has fallen off in similar ways pretty much everywhere.
The political price will be paid according to the measures politicians decide to take to head the ship back to calmer waters, rather than the relative decline in economic performance statistics during the crisis.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
No. Persuade the electorate; that's what campaigning is about. Labour will never (and doesn't want to) win over those who are very right wing, whether they be Tory toffs, Faragists, or sections of the white working class (not that high a proportion, actually) that tend towards xenophobia and other prejudices. But they need to persuade others that they are fit to govern. That means neutralising the 'patriotism' issue, not by flag waving but by persuading the majority that Labour likes this country (which it does) and will protect its interests. If the electorate is unpersuadable, then we may as well give up. But Labour doesn't need to persuade BluestBlue, for example; he is out of reach.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
Yawn. But also not yawn - because Yes. Spot on. Change the electorate. As in move hearts & minds. As in remove scales from eyes.
It is a big problem for Labour, as it was for Dems in the US for most of the last 4 years. And that worked out OK in the end without Biden wrapping himself in the Stars n' Bars.
Biden standing in front of a huge Stars and Stripes here, the sign interpreter also has the US flag next to her
Apparently the current acceptance rate for vaccine offers is 85%, so 25.5m jabs to cover all in the 30m tiers 1-9 who want it.
10.5m already done, and we're rapidly heading towards 3m a week, so decent shout of covering the at risks groups in 5 weeks time, c. March 10th 3 weeks ahead of Easter.
Yep that sounds about right.
Also, we will need to factor in infection-conferred immunity too.
I think by Easter things could be looking rather positive.
rest assured, a reason will be dreamed up why you have to stay in lockdown. Right now the favourites are
Mutant strains Poor take up of vaccines stubbornly high cases
Something will come along.
Why? Why do you think the government wants us to be in lockdown? It's ruining the country's finances.
What possible benefit do you think they get out of this conspiracy?
I believe his answer in the past has been the general point about the corrupting influence of power, particularly as relates to SAGE.
I still say that even if SAGE want thta, we're already seeing pushback from Sunal and definitely would others - the more things look 'ok' or the sort of thing you do get during flu season, the less politicians will take up such suggestions to keep us restricted even if they are made.
The goverment can do it because the public are in favour - that will not last.
Quite.
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
There's obviously a spectrum from the liberty/economy absolutists (very few) to liberty/economy prioritizers (more) to safety/suppression prioritizers (the majority) to safety/suppression absolutists (very few).
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Where most people are in the debate is not aware of the consequences of what's being done in their name. On Furlough or in the public sector or on pensions or other support measures.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Part of the deficit is of Sunak`s own making. His packages are poorly targeted. Some people missed out entirely while many others are feeling very flush at the moment. It`s easy to dish it out but a bugger to get it back again.
There is no doubt that Britain would have taken a big hit to its finances whatever the government did. Big hit
But there are, undoubtedly, doing to be winners and losers. Some economies have shrunk less than four per cent. for others, its touching double digit.
and that means its going to be easier for some to recover than others. Much, much easier.
Re GDP - listen to recent edition of More or Less. Can`t reliably compare GDP across nations because there are big difference in how service worker pandemic productivity is factored in.
Some countries (e.g. Spain) have made no adjustment. UK has applied a large reduction in output for key groups inc teachers. Consequently our figures are more honest while others are producing GDP figures that don`t fully reflect the pandemic effect.
Thanks to the ONS not a political decision, but extremely helpful to the government to pile up crap figures when basically no one cares and give themselves a lovely low denominator to claim a world leading bounce back, entirely due to their perfectly handled vaccine roll out and brexit deal!
Even the Tory Party needs to up their flag waving, Rule Britannia singing, game.
Looking at the data it appears that the Tories can win easily just on the votes of patriots but Labour have to appeal to all sides - patriots and indifferent and non patriots - to keep the vote up - which is a lot harder. Union Flag? Knee? Red flag? St George?
Even the Tory Party needs to up their flag waving, Rule Britannia singing, game.
Looking at the data it appears that the Tories can win easily just on the votes of patriots but Labour have to appeal to all sides - patriots and indifferent and non patriots - to keep the vote up - which is a lot harder. Union Flag? Knee? Red flag? St George?
Or all four at the same time for maximum hilarity.
Undoubtedly that is the mood of the country, it's also frankly push polling to state the true downside for 1 option, without properly stating the outcome on the other (rather than 'even if lockdown lasts longer' try 'even if that means services are cut deeply for the next decade')
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
During the war Labour used the political breathing space to develop a truly radical blueprint for the better society it wanted to see after the war - much of it drawn from inter-war liberal thinking (such as the Beveridge report); securing election in 1945 on the back of this programme, the extent of change it achieved during its first term was breathtaking - the creation of the NHS, the modern welfare state, and the groundbreaking Planning Act.
Where are the signs that anyone on the centre or left of politics is even thinking about the same amount of heavy lifting for the 21st century?
Taking the widest historical view, the left of politics has always concerned itself with the radical changes needed to march society toward a better future (the consequences of such are for another day). Where is such a vision today? If Labour in 2024 simply puts itself forward as a more credible team of technocratic managers than the current lot, they are surely doomed.
Even the Tory Party needs to up their flag waving, Rule Britannia singing, game.
Looking at the data it appears that the Tories can win easily just on the votes of patriots but Labour have to appeal to all sides - patriots and indifferent and non patriots - to keep the vote up - which is a lot harder. Union Flag? Knee? Red flag? St George?
Those voters that will win Labour the next election just voted for the Tories, in working-class midlands and northern seats. They noticed that Corbyn wasn't patriotic.
Those who hate flags unless they're Palestinian flags are voting Labour anyway, Starmer doesn't need to 'appeal' to them.
200k signatures to give Captain Tom a state funeral.
Isn't this all getting a bit much now?
Yes, that is OTT. And not a Captain Tom point but I'm also getting a bit conflicted at seeing people with major health problems embarking on public feats of endurance to raise money for the NHS.
They have an eye to jumping the queues when this is all over?
Survival of the fittest/unhealthiest with a strategy....
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
It's going your way. 2015 Yougov has GB all age groups very+fairly at 67% so there has been no Brexit surge.
I have a lot of sympathy with this 22 year old writing shortly before dying in France in 1944
"Don’t get me wrong though, Mom, I am no flag-waving patriot…England’s a great little country – the best there is – but I cannot honestly say that it is ‘worth fighting for’. Nor can I fancy myself in the role of a gallant crusader fighting for the liberation of Europe. It would be a nice thought but I would only be kidding myself. No, Mom, my little world is centred around you and including Dad, everyone at home, and my friends at W[olverhamp]ton – That is worth fighting for – and if by doing so it strengthens your security and improves your lot in any way, then it is worth dying for too."
Of course - that's what most soldiers fight for. There's also the little epigram of Yuri Belash:
'To be honest about it — in the trenches the last thing we thought about was Stalin.'
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
Yawn. But also not yawn - because Yes. Spot on. Change the electorate. As in move hearts & minds. As in remove scales from eyes.
And, let's be honest, there's an important strand of the government that is tying to do the same thing. "Britannia Unchained" is all about the idea that the British Public need to raise their eyes to the far horizon and work harder to take opportunities on the other side of the world.
What if Liz Truss invites us all to a party on the other side of the world, and nobody from Britain turns up?
(But yes. From the perspective of a politically homeless Clarkeite ex-Conservative, Labour needs to be more relaxed about having flags in the backdrop. I've said that Cool Britannia or the Spirit of 2012 is the way to do this.)
The problem with the protocol is in the detail, whether deliberate or accidental.
The GFA had two fundamentals for individuals . The right of anyone living here to choose their citizenship as Irish or British. Has not changed due to Brexit. I can have two passports if I want by dint of my address.
The concept that you can travel across borders between NI/ROI/GB. This is called the common travel area, has not changed and has been in play for decades EU or no EU. I believe the Brexit agreement left that untouched.
The problem is trade, not free movement of people. That the two have intertwined is one problem, because they shouldn't have been intertwined. In short someone didn't do their detail or someone is doing too much detail.
This shouldn't be an identity issue, its an issue of doing business and for the umpteenth time, NI's biggest market, by far, for trade in and out is GB. That's all there is to it, you have customs regulations and checks on stuff to and from ROI its got a lot smaller impact than what is happening now. Some fucking whizz concluded, however, that this was a bigger problem when the stats on trade would have told you that it wasn't.
Somehow the 'oh my god they will be burning down border posts' shit kicked off. You know how much of that came from the NI parties of all stripes? Actually not a lot. Most of it I heard was from people outside of NI.
Cannot emphasise enough, there was not going to be a return to any major trouble, zero. The usual suspects were there before 31st Dec and are there now, no change. Bit more motivated? Maybe, mass recruitment? Not a fucking chance.
This can be sorted via pragmatic working and we need to take the peace threatening talk out.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Ah, the Brecht solution:
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?
Not often expressed as clearly as our very own @kinabalu expresses it.
Boring! Knew I'd see that. Not what I mean at all. I mean persuade, explain - preach even - rather than just tamely accept the tacitly dim and patronizing view of the British people held by populist politicians of the right. They are in the box seat now but it will soon change. So this is not the time to concede an inch to their inherently dispiriting world view. Flags away. Flags away.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
Yawn. But also not yawn - because Yes. Spot on. Change the electorate. As in move hearts & minds. As in remove scales from eyes.
Labour had the chance, not to change the electorate, but to introduce a fairer way of delivering its representation, having explicitly promised to do so in its manifesto. That Labour reneged on this promise, led astray by the hubris of its false parliamentary majorities, is surely the biggest political misjudgment it has made during our lifetime.
Oh ok, I'll just stop wanting Salmond to be treated justly then - thanks for making the right course of action so clear.
I'm sorry that your (recently acquired) desire for justice for Salmond can be so easily deflected by something I've said. Might try saying other stuff to you if it's that easy.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
Yawn. But also not yawn - because Yes. Spot on. Change the electorate. As in move hearts & minds. As in remove scales from eyes.
The electorate are very reluctant to have scales removed from eyes.
I mean, they kept voting for Salmond and Sturgeon.....
Undoubtedly that is the mood of the country, it's also frankly push polling to state the true downside for 1 option, without properly stating the outcome on the other (rather than 'even if lockdown lasts longer' try 'even if that means services are cut deeply for the next decade')
Absolutely. Enormous subsidies, a huge propaganda campaign and fear mongering are keeping people in line.
You have to say, the government is pretty good at it. For now.
Just read the the BoE has kept interest rates at 0.1%.but as warned negative rates are coming. What effect will negative rates have ?
What SHOULD happen is that the economy should be restored to health through a construction boom, as their prices rise and people find it cheap to borrow to build them. That's what happened in the mid-1930s in the Midlands and southern England and it's why so much of our housing stock dates from those few years.
But that doesn't happen these days, because it is so difficult to build houses anywhere people might actually want to live.
So what happens instead is that people make money trading already existing houses and other assets (like cryptocurrencies and other shit) as their prices boom. Does nothing for bona fide economic activity, but makes speculators a fortune.
A lot of people don't trust new houses. Although I did buy a new house I would be wary of doing it again. I think my current view is that I'm supportive of less planning controls if its combined with better consumer protection in regards to buying said new homes.
The government has scrapped their proposed planning reforms haven't they?
I actually find them too well insulated.
Used to older houses and flats, which were designed to have air flows...
I'm the opposite. I wouldn't want to live anywhere that wasn't built to current building regulations. I'm spoilt by having the heating on pretty much all the time and yet still paying £45 a month for gas and electric.
The sweet spot for me I think is buying somewhere around 5 years old. It has had time to settle and it's a physical property you can inspect, both the house and its surroundings.
Anything hotter than 17 degrees celsius for me is unbearable....just get sleepy all the time.
I don't mind it if it's natural heat, but there's something about artificial heat, like fierce air-conditioning, that's pretty unbearable. I only turn my heating on for a couple of weeks a year when it gets really cold.
The benefit of having good insulation and modern radiators is that you can run the flow temperature rather low. The boiler is then much more efficient and the heat is much less harsh.
If you have good insulation and decent airtightness, you usually won't need a boiler.
I know someone who has a newbuild (self-built) house which is fine for him and mrs, and has plumbed a 1.4kw electric water heater into his to now unneeded ufh piping system to run for a couple of hours to warm it up a little for when his adult kids come to stay.
You will if its built by a large-scale commercial builder! My house will drop from around 20 deg C to 17 deg C overnight currently. However it will heat up quickly and solar gain is usually enough outside of the winter months.
Would find it really hard to sleep at 17 degrees!
I remember once kipping in an overseas friend's room in a building that the college thought was empty. I'm sure it was about 5 degrees, inside. I was fully clothed in two sleeping bags and still cold....
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Ah, the Brecht solution:
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?
Not often expressed as clearly as our very own @kinabalu expresses it.
Boring! Knew I'd see that. Not what I mean at all. I mean persuade, explain - preach even - rather than just tamely accept the tacitly dim and patronizing view of the British people held by populist politicians of the right. They are in the box seat now but it will soon change. So this is not the time to concede an inch to their inherently dispiriting world view. Flags away. Flags away.
What if, and bear with me on this, it's the majority that have something to teach you?
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
During the war Labour used the political breathing space to develop a truly radical blueprint for the better society it wanted to see after the war - much of it drawn from inter-war liberal thinking (such as the Beveridge report); securing election in 1945 on the back of this programme, the extent of change it achieved during its first term was breathtaking - the creation of the NHS, the modern welfare state, and the groundbreaking Planning Act.
Where are the signs that anyone on the centre or left of politics is even thinking about the same amount of heavy lifting for the 21st century?
Taking the widest historical view, the left of politics has always concerned itself with the radical changes needed to march society toward a better future (the consequences of such are for another day). Where is such a vision today? If Labour in 2024 simply puts itself forward as a more credible team of technocratic managers than the current lot, they are surely doomed.
Beveridge Report was nothing to do with the Labour Party in isolation. What was in isolation with the Labour Party was to vote for the European Medicines Agreement.
Interestingly, my keyboard suggestion came up with 'Medieval'. It would have been appropriate I suppose.
The problem with the protocol is in the detail, whether deliberate or accidental.
The GFA had two fundamentals for individuals . The right of anyone living here to choose their citizenship as Irish or British. Has not changed due to Brexit. I can have two passports if I want by dint of my address.
The concept that you can travel across borders between NI/ROI/GB. This is called the common travel area, has not changed and has been in play for decades EU or no EU. I believe the Brexit agreement left that untouched.
The problem is trade, not free movement of people. That the two have intertwined is one problem, because they shouldn't have been intertwined. In short someone didn't do their detail or someone is doing too much detail.
This shouldn't be an identity issue, its an issue of doing business and for the umpteenth time, NI's biggest market, by far, for trade in and out is GB. That's all there is to it, you have customs regulations and checks on stuff to and from ROI its got a lot smaller impact than what is happening now. Some fucking whizz concluded, however, that this was a bigger problem when the stats on trade would have told you that it wasn't.
Somehow the 'oh my god they will be burning down border posts' shit kicked off. You know how much of that came from the NI parties of all stripes? Actually not a lot. Most of it I heard was from people outside of NI.
Cannot emphasise enough, there was not going to be a return to any major trouble, zero. The usual suspects were there before 31st Dec and are there now, no change. Bit more motivated? Maybe, mass recruitment? Not a fucking chance.
This can be sorted via pragmatic working and we need to take the peace threatening talk out.
It always stunned me that anyone even mentioned that peace would be threatened.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
I am not sure why anyone who aspires to govern the UK would particularly want the broad mass of people to care less about its success. The solution is not to hope people become less patriotic, but to advertise 'real' patriotism - the kind that shuns flag waving pomposity but quietly toils away till 2am wrestling with how to overcome non-tariff barriers etc. etc. REAL Government, REAL Patriotism.
After yesterday’s PMQs theatre, Labour reluctantly admitted Starmer had called for UK membership of the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Guido can reveal Starmer went further than merely talking the talk – he voted for an amendment in 2018 that would have seen the UK bound into EMA membership. The amendment in question was New Clause 17 to the 2018 Trade Bill, which read:
“It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.”
During the epic May-era parliamentary battle, Starmer, along with 240 Labour MPs, two sitting Tories and others – voted for this, trying to ensure the UK made it a negotiating objective “to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency”. At the time proclaiming this would ensure patients continue “to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.” Keir might be be hoping we have forgotten, Guido is not convinced his famously forensic legal brain would have really forgotten...
This story feels very much like a #10 sting and something they were extremely bad at all of last year.
They have dug out a specific and topical example of where old Remainer Starmer was consistently doing everything possible to keep the UK in the EU....and then helpfully pointed a friendly gossip monger to where to go looking.
Doh. It's hardly a revelation that Starmer wanted to stay in, or as close as possible to, the EU back in 2018, is it? I suspect that's well known, and he can't change that. What's important now is that he has accepted that Brexit has happened and any prospect of rejoining is very distant.
It smacks a bit of desperation to land a killer blow on Starmer, and will fail. Maybe the Tories, and Guido, should focus on what he's said/done since he became leader.
Although not quite as feeble as the recent "scoop" revealing that 16 years ago he said that many years before that, as a thrusting young radical, he was not enamoured by the notion of a hereditary Head of State. I mean, c'mon. If that's a big vote loser for the mainstream party of the left in Britain, Britain has no use for a mainstream party of the left. And before BluestBlue or anyone similarly inclined nips in with a smart arse reply, of course Britain does need and want a mainstream party of the left.
As if I would ever say something like that! For all I know, Britain may well need and want a mainstream party of the left; it just doesn't seem all that keen on electing one to power.
This is a betting site uber alles so I say again a factoid which imo should be etched in people's brains for the long term.
In the early hours of the morning following GE17 a certain Jeremy Corbyn - not just left wing but a lifelong member of the HARD left - went odds on favourite in running to be the next Prime Minister of this country.
Think on.
And then what happened next? Anyone taking that bet would have lost their money.
Sheepish confession, I profited because I took the other side. But you take my point. Do not go thinking Labour cannot win a GE here - and soon - from the left. It's sterile, sloppy groupthink. They can. They totally can.
Naturally. In reality, I'm the least complacent person about a left-wing resurgence you could possibly meet. That's why I think Boris should bayonet them (metaphorically) while they're down.
It doesn't mean Labour should become more patriotic necessarily. An alternative and superior solution would be for the public to grow up and become less so. The Conservatives would then have the problem. They'd have this more sophisticated and enlightened electorate getting pissed off with them and punishing them at the ballot box for banging on about Britain all the time and constantly waving flags around and implying we are something very special compared to those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere. That's where I hope we're heading once this little bout of Brexit-fueled national populism has blown itself out and people get back to brass tacks.
Change the electorate! That’ll be a winner!
Yawn. But also not yawn - because Yes. Spot on. Change the electorate. As in move hearts & minds. As in remove scales from eyes.
And, let's be honest, there's an important strand of the government that is tying to do the same thing. "Britannia Unchained" is all about the idea that the British Public need to raise their eyes to the far horizon and work harder to take opportunities on the other side of the world.
What if Liz Truss invites us all to a party on the other side of the world, and nobody from Britain turns up?
(But yes. From the perspective of a politically homeless Clarkeite ex-Conservative, Labour needs to be more relaxed about having flags in the backdrop. I've said that Cool Britannia or the Spirit of 2012 is the way to do this.)
The international website of the DfiD (Liz Truss's department) is rather well branded, for a foreign audience.
Comments
Sunak questioned the notion, often expressed on here, that SAGE don;t want us in lockdown a minute longer than they have to.
It clearly is not true in some cases. I wonder about some politicians too. On both sides of the house.
I hope she is not getting populated with people who did not like her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-politics-55936918
Sunak, and the recovery group, are desperately, desperately, trying to save something from the carnage that is about to ensue.
I fear they are already too late.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=parker+pen+ad+with+penelope+keith#id=3&vid=0966fab2bca7ac231b5ea2358b67a2d6&action=click
The argument the outer edges of that spectrum are (apparently) having with one another has no bearing on where most people are in the debate.
Therefore it is obviously wrong. And without it, everything would be fine, it would be fine, honest it would be fine.
Accordingly, the only reason that anyone in authority would apply it must be that they are being fooled or compelled by a conspiracy of scientists.
Everything must be twisted to fit into that view.
The real victims of lockdown, the young and the self employed and small business people in the private sector have been targeted because they are voiceless and are in any case are drowned out by the governments vast propaganda campaign.
That is where most people are.
As I say, Sunak and co are trying to save something. He must be looking at the finances in absolute despair. He can't raise taxes he can't cut taxes, he can't raise or cut spending, all for political reasons.
And yet he has a 400bn deficit to try to close.
I'm amazed he hasn't resigned. Talk about a poisoned challice.
Labour supposed to be in partnership with union movement
SirAbstainalot got hold of the wrong end of the stick or should i say flagpole
Anyway I know @uklabour can win in 2024 without any left wing voters because SO/Jonathon/CHB on here
say so* Flag Shaggers will be flocking our way because its really believable that we are the party of the flag
*and without members, Scotland, Wales, or anyone under 40 to boot we will waltz home.
This is because he thinks Covid is made up.
The 23-year-old slipped on a marble floor outside the changing room during Tuesday's practice session."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/55924989
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1357367285388894217
We know that's not the case. Robert has pointed out time and again that it doesn't happen that way in no-lockdown places.
Hell, the numbers have shown (and I checked them because I hate taking things on trust) that restaurant footfall in the UK dropped less than it did in no-lockdown States in the US - because the lockdowns worked to decrease the prevalence and fear to the point people would use them more freely again.
And time and again, he ignores that point whenever it is made. He ignores that Government are aware of that point. He ignores that many economists have made that point. He just blithely insists that we'd be fine economically and socially if we just threw off the shackles of lockdown, ignoring that the pandemic itself is the key issue. And accuses others of being blind, or ignoring the costs.
But there are, undoubtedly, doing to be winners and losers. Some economies have shrunk less than four per cent. for others, its touching double digit.
and that means its going to be easier for some to recover than others. Much, much easier.
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler,
If the government simply dissolved the people
And elected another?
Not often expressed as clearly as our very own @kinabalu expresses it.
Some countries (e.g. Spain) have made no adjustment. UK has applied a large reduction in output for key groups inc teachers. Consequently our figures are more honest while others are producing GDP figures that don`t fully reflect the pandemic effect.
In the early hours of the morning following GE17 a certain Jeremy Corbyn - not just left wing but a lifelong member of the HARD left - went odds on favourite in running to be the next Prime Minister of this country.
Think on.
https://twitter.com/squire67/status/1357384137137655811?s=19
Because QE acted invisibly and no-one really understands or sees it happening, its political cost has proved negligible. Free money that avoids economic pain and comes with no political cost is like crack cocaine designed especially for politicians, and it is no surprise that every attempt to go cold turkey has so far failed.
I`ve had a small nibble at 13 on a 1-0 Spurs win. Those odds are available with BF, Smarkets and Betdaq.
If the Scottish figure is indeed correct (and I truly find it hard to believe it true) that is an astonishing difference.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/07/14/decline-british-patriotism
I have a lot of sympathy with this 22 year old writing shortly before dying in France in 1944
"Don’t get me wrong though, Mom, I am no flag-waving patriot…England’s a great little country – the best there is – but I cannot honestly say that it is ‘worth fighting for’. Nor can I fancy myself in the role of a gallant crusader fighting for the liberation of Europe. It would be a nice thought but I would only be kidding myself. No, Mom, my little world is centred around you and including Dad, everyone at home, and my friends at W[olverhamp]ton – That is worth fighting for – and if by doing so it strengthens your security and improves your lot in any way, then it is worth dying for too."
(smart-arse enough?)
The political price will be paid according to the measures politicians decide to take to head the ship back to calmer waters, rather than the relative decline in economic performance statistics during the crisis.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1278012801143865344?s=20
And I find that fairly unbelievable.
Where are the signs that anyone on the centre or left of politics is even thinking about the same amount of heavy lifting for the 21st century?
Taking the widest historical view, the left of politics has always concerned itself with the radical changes needed to march society toward a better future (the consequences of such are for another day). Where is such a vision today? If Labour in 2024 simply puts itself forward as a more credible team of technocratic managers than the current lot, they are surely doomed.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cricket-india-v-england
Those who hate flags unless they're Palestinian flags are voting Labour anyway, Starmer doesn't need to 'appeal' to them.
Survival of the fittest/unhealthiest with a strategy....
'To be honest about it —
in the trenches the last thing we thought about
was Stalin.'
What if Liz Truss invites us all to a party on the other side of the world, and nobody from Britain turns up?
(But yes. From the perspective of a politically homeless Clarkeite ex-Conservative, Labour needs to be more relaxed about having flags in the backdrop. I've said that Cool Britannia or the Spirit of 2012 is the way to do this.)
The GFA had two fundamentals for individuals
.
The right of anyone living here to choose their citizenship as Irish or British. Has not changed due to Brexit. I can have two passports if I want by dint of my address.
The concept that you can travel across borders between NI/ROI/GB. This is called the common travel area, has not changed and has been in play for decades EU or no EU. I believe the Brexit agreement left that untouched.
The problem is trade, not free movement of people. That the two have intertwined is one problem, because they shouldn't have been intertwined. In short someone didn't do their detail or someone is doing too much detail.
This shouldn't be an identity issue, its an issue of doing business and for the umpteenth time, NI's biggest market, by far, for trade in and out is GB. That's all there is to it, you have customs regulations and checks on stuff to and from ROI its got a lot smaller impact than what is happening now. Some fucking whizz concluded, however, that this was a bigger problem when the stats on trade would have told you that it wasn't.
Somehow the 'oh my god they will be burning down border posts' shit kicked off. You know how much of that came from the NI parties of all stripes? Actually not a lot. Most of it I heard was from people outside of NI.
Cannot emphasise enough, there was not going to be a return to any major trouble, zero. The usual suspects were there before 31st Dec and are there now, no change. Bit more motivated? Maybe, mass recruitment? Not a fucking chance.
This can be sorted via pragmatic working and we need to take the peace threatening talk out.
I mean, they kept voting for Salmond and Sturgeon.....
You have to say, the government is pretty good at it. For now.
I remember once kipping in an overseas friend's room in a building that the college thought was empty. I'm sure it was about 5 degrees, inside. I was fully clothed in two sleeping bags and still cold....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgGmYeAm0jk
What was in isolation with the Labour Party was to vote for the European Medicines Agreement.
Interestingly, my keyboard suggestion came up with 'Medieval'. It would have been appropriate I suppose.
OK, it’s not the highest of bars, but you cleared it with style
https://www.great.gov.uk/international/?lang=en-gb
There are fewer flags on the UK version, aimed at exporters.
https://www.great.gov.uk/?lang=en-gb
https://youtu.be/EhkTEb8mMD8