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.
Possibly. Certainly I favour PR and if Labour now cannot win outright, I favour it even more. I think it's probably coming. The country will not tolerate electing Tory governments the whole time. I'd miss the dramatic brutality of FPTP but it really is a bizarre system when you think rationally about it.
Your problem is there is no way the SNP will vote to allow PR - because then they are a side-show at Westminster, rather than the support Labour vitally needs to form a Government.
I was more thinking beyond the mechanics. If FPTP keeps returning pure Tory government on a minority of the vote the "people" will eventually demand a stop to it via electoral reform.
No they won't. I would further venture to suggest that the great mass of the people devotes precisely no time to thinking about alternative electoral systems or the need for reform.
We will not have decades of Tory rule. England is too large and heterogeneous to permit it. There's not been anything resembling a one-party state here since the Whig Supremacy - in a far-distant age, long before either the modern party political system or universal suffrage.
When a crucial fraction of the electorate is sufficiently fed up of the Government and sufficiently trusting of the Opposition then change will come.
I want justice for everyone, even Salmond. I would also like a constituent nation of the UK to NOT be so obviously a one-party state, corrupt at the very top
If fixing this fucks Sturgeon and the Nats, at the same time, all the better!
But my desire is still the correct and moral choice
Sorry to break it to you but no one gives a feck what you want or like. Apart from you and your multiple personalities of course.
I happened to read an article on Conservative Home the other day and noticed you in the comments section telling people they weren't real Conservatives.
I happened to read an article on Conservative Home the other day and noticed you in the comments section telling people they weren't real Conservatives.
"Scientists at University College (UCL) London believe the rate as of Tuesday was 0.65 to 0.86, considerably better than the official Government estimate of 0.7 to 1.1 published last Friday.
They use a more complex and nuanced approach to estimate the current real-world rate of infection rather than looking back roughly two weeks, as Sage does.
The UCL team said their modelling showed that the third national lockdown was the most important factor in explaining the drop in cases from the early January peak.
However, they added that the figures cannot be fully explained without taking into account the growing impact of Covid vaccines"
PB ahead of the curve, we've known this for at least a week already.
Also good to see the consensus view that the low R rate must be somehow related to the vaccine programme.
I happened to read an article on Conservative Home the other day and noticed you in the comments section telling people they weren't real Conservatives.
Wow he does it there too?
I have now visions of hyufd chasing people out of his constituency meetings with his tickle stick because they are not real conservatives
I happened to read an article on Conservative Home the other day and noticed you in the comments section telling people they weren't real Conservatives.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, (post hoc) support for lockdown will plummet after tax rises hit...
You reckon? I'd cheerfully have a 10-point rise in my income tax in return for minimising my risk of dying from Covid. You can't take it with you and all that.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling 2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, (post hoc) support for lockdown will plummet after tax rises hit...
You reckon? I'd cheerfully have a 10-point rise in my income tax in return for minimising my risk of dying from Covid. You can't take it with you and all that.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling 2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
Dislike for china starting with the uighars? Sorry did we merely express dislike for the nazi's for what they did with jews because frankly from what I see being reported the treatment isn't that much different
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.
I think I agree, Ian. The country wants a vision. Not the same one, obviously and thankfully, but certainly something more than just a return to moderation and competence. The world is really changing fast.
One of the many reasons I could never vote Conservative was the undertone throughout the 1980s that you could only be patriotic if you were a Tory. Being anything other than a Conservative meant you didn't love your country.
That was disgraceful - men like Denis Healey and Michael Foot were patriots to the core. They had a different vision for Britain than the Conservatives but they loved their country every bit as much.
The problem with advocating radical or "bold" solutions is people are often frightened of change. It was clear in 1979 for example Butskellism had failed and we needed something different. In 1997, on the other hand, most people were happy with how thing they were - they just wanted a bit more money on public services and a change from the Conservatives.
The latter sentiment will be true again before too long - Starmer can win but only if he can persuade enough people the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre left, supportive of the individual and small business.
Don't know if its the dropping of the 'social' part but its fairly straightforward that the majority of the population, whatever their stripe, will not like the impression that a party or its representatives don't like or insist on putting their country down. And that's the thing, its their country. Like family they may have their fights but they care for it.
Starmer gets it, and its not something that should be a challenge for Labour. The fact that Starmer feels a need to push this proactively suggests something has gone wrong that needs correcting. Whether he has the charisma to make it work I do not know.
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.
Possibly. Certainly I favour PR and if Labour now cannot win outright, I favour it even more. I think it's probably coming. The country will not tolerate electing Tory governments the whole time. I'd miss the dramatic brutality of FPTP but it really is a bizarre system when you think rationally about it.
Your problem is there is no way the SNP will vote to allow PR - because then they are a side-show at Westminster, rather than the support Labour vitally needs to form a Government.
I was more thinking beyond the mechanics. If FPTP keeps returning pure Tory government on a minority of the vote the "people" will eventually demand a stop to it via electoral reform.
Labour will only be able to come close in the UK, by making a clear and unequivocal statement that they will not work with the SNP after the election. The Tories will keep a clear lead in England otherwise.
The Tories could win a majority in England and Labour still get enough seats to form a government with the SNP
It's an extremely narrow landing strip under those circumstances. If the Conservatives hold any sort of majority of seats in England then they are highly unlikely to get wiped out in Wales, even if they're worn down to nothing in Scotland. That would put them over the 300 seat mark and would, failing an outright Tory win, likely get us back into the sort of territory where the DUP control the balance of power. In which case, good luck to Labour trying to square the competing visions of the SNP and the DUP on the future of the Union.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, (post hoc) support for lockdown will plummet after tax rises hit...
You reckon? I'd cheerfully have a 10-point rise in my income tax in return for minimising my risk of dying from Covid. You can't take it with you and all that.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling 2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
How does threatening an enormous fine work when those most likely to break the quarantine are those with no money to pay such a fine? We aren't going to lock people up for 10 years like they might in China.
We'd need to go down the enforced hotel quarantine route for it to work at all. But that has all kinds of difficulties (staff, etc).
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, (post hoc) support for lockdown will plummet after tax rises hit...
You reckon? I'd cheerfully have a 10-point rise in my income tax in return for minimising my risk of dying from Covid. You can't take it with you and all that.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling 2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
One of the few times I entirely agree with you. I've been amazed at how much Lockdown some of my most freedom-loving friends are willing to tolerate. A lot of people want the government to go full on Wuhan. No more flights. Sealed off neighbourhoods. Staple the doors of the obstinate. Use giant nets to catch quarantine-dodgers.
It's made me realise just how much Most People don't want to die, or even risk dying. And fair enough.
That's why I believe Covid vaccination will become compulsory, in fact or in practice. The large majority will demand it, some government will therefore enact it
10 million people vaccinated is excellent news - undeniable.
I look forward to getting my first vaccination in the next 4-6 weeks which will make the sum total of bugger all difference to how I live on a day-to-day basis.
The Oxford Astra Zeneca efficacy numbers were very impressive and suggesting a second vaccination provides only a slight improvement in immunity. It's certainly not as much a prerequisite as Pfizer but it's natural to assume as more vaccines emerge they will be better.
I remain concerned as to where we will be later this year - I can envisage a rapid easing of restrictions, a feeling of euphoria and a generally pleasant summer - after all, that's what we got last year when no one was vaccinated and we managed to bring the virus much more under control (or thought we did).
How long will immunity continue ? 6 months ? The problem won't be what happens in the UK once we have large numbers vaccinated but as we open up to the world and re-establish contact with countries with much weaker vaccination regimes - how many Americans will refuse any vaccine? All those who voted for Trump?
Given the numbers of vaccine doses purchased by the UK, I suspect we'll be back on a vaccination programme in September but perhaps by then we'll see vaccines providing more effective immunity for longer periods. We may well in time have an anti-Covid vaccination as we do for influenza now as Covid becomes the dominant virus.
The problem with easing restrictions is many will want everything open at once - the desire for "normality" is strong even though the life we had pre-Covid will never return - and while I've enjoyed a certain nostalgia at having my hair longer than at any time since my student days I'd welcome a de-thatching (perhaps I can persuade someone in Essex I'm an 18th century farmhouse in need of some maintenance).
While we've all wanted to be an agricultural building at some time, the post-Covid world is still hard to define. There will be an initial splurge of spending - those who have money will splash out on holidays and haircuts but to what extent will old habits die hard and to what extent will some of the new ways of life we've uncovered or discovered in the past year persist?
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, (post hoc) support for lockdown will plummet after tax rises hit...
You reckon? I'd cheerfully have a 10-point rise in my income tax in return for minimising my risk of dying from Covid. You can't take it with you and all that.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling 2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
Well, I wouldn't. And I pay for private medical insurance.
The risks of my being especially impacted by Covid are minimal. Absolutely insignificant compared to lots of known, extant conditions.
Lots of youngsters have made incredible sacrifices for the sake of the elderly. They should not be saddled with the debt as well.
20% extra IHT rate on boomers, to pay for Covid regulations that limited the freedom of youngsters to protect them? Now you're talking.
Edit to add:
No thanks to the perpetually under threat of lockdown idea.
"Scientists at University College (UCL) London believe the rate as of Tuesday was 0.65 to 0.86, considerably better than the official Government estimate of 0.7 to 1.1 published last Friday.
They use a more complex and nuanced approach to estimate the current real-world rate of infection rather than looking back roughly two weeks, as Sage does.
The UCL team said their modelling showed that the third national lockdown was the most important factor in explaining the drop in cases from the early January peak.
However, they added that the figures cannot be fully explained without taking into account the growing impact of Covid vaccines"
PB ahead of the curve, we've known this for at least a week already.
Also good to see the consensus view that the low R rate must be somehow related to the vaccine programme.
'Complex and nuanced'
hmm... bit of a guess then. As that bloke on NCIS would say 'A gut feeling'.
Comments
'Mr President what do you consider you are most proud of in your life?'
'Home Alone 2, I'm very proud of it, most proud, biggest proud'
We will not have decades of Tory rule. England is too large and heterogeneous to permit it. There's not been anything resembling a one-party state here since the Whig Supremacy - in a far-distant age, long before either the modern party political system or universal suffrage.
When a crucial fraction of the electorate is sufficiently fed up of the Government and sufficiently trusting of the Opposition then change will come.
"Scientists at University College (UCL) London believe the rate as of Tuesday was 0.65 to 0.86, considerably better than the official Government estimate of 0.7 to 1.1 published last Friday.
They use a more complex and nuanced approach to estimate the current real-world rate of infection rather than looking back roughly two weeks, as Sage does.
The UCL team said their modelling showed that the third national lockdown was the most important factor in explaining the drop in cases from the early January peak.
However, they added that the figures cannot be fully explained without taking into account the growing impact of Covid vaccines"
PB ahead of the curve, we've known this for at least a week already.
Also good to see the consensus view that the low R rate must be somehow related to the vaccine programme.
But despite all the things I dislike about the Chinese government, starting with the Uighurs, I agree with what I understand to be their current approach once the pandemic is at a low level:
1. Allow free mingling
2. If someone gets it, require everyone nearby and all known contacts to stay at home for two weeks. No walks, no shopping, no special cases except acute illness and transfer to hospital. Visit them several times a day to make sure they're sticking to it. If you are found breaking it, pay an enormous fine.
Friends living there with no particular affection for the government tell me that this is seen as an obviously good deal. Live a normal life but keep two weeks' food stocked up. Now and then, have to stay at home. What's wrong with that? People say that we are much too freedom-lovimg to tolerate it, but I don't think that's true, as this poll illustrates. What people mostly want is not total freedom and lots of disease, nor permanent lockdown. They want a lockdown that works, strictly applied, followed by something like a normal life.
Starmer gets it, and its not something that should be a challenge for Labour. The fact that Starmer feels a need to push this proactively suggests something has gone wrong that needs correcting. Whether he has the charisma to make it work I do not know.
And Scheisse is a more expressive term that shit.
NEW THREAD
We'd need to go down the enforced hotel quarantine route for it to work at all. But that has all kinds of difficulties (staff, etc).
It's made me realise just how much Most People don't want to die, or even risk dying. And fair enough.
That's why I believe Covid vaccination will become compulsory, in fact or in practice. The large majority will demand it, some government will therefore enact it
I look forward to getting my first vaccination in the next 4-6 weeks which will make the sum total of bugger all difference to how I live on a day-to-day basis.
The Oxford Astra Zeneca efficacy numbers were very impressive and suggesting a second vaccination provides only a slight improvement in immunity. It's certainly not as much a prerequisite as Pfizer but it's natural to assume as more vaccines emerge they will be better.
I remain concerned as to where we will be later this year - I can envisage a rapid easing of restrictions, a feeling of euphoria and a generally pleasant summer - after all, that's what we got last year when no one was vaccinated and we managed to bring the virus much more under control (or thought we did).
How long will immunity continue ? 6 months ? The problem won't be what happens in the UK once we have large numbers vaccinated but as we open up to the world and re-establish contact with countries with much weaker vaccination regimes - how many Americans will refuse any vaccine? All those who voted for Trump?
Given the numbers of vaccine doses purchased by the UK, I suspect we'll be back on a vaccination programme in September but perhaps by then we'll see vaccines providing more effective immunity for longer periods. We may well in time have an anti-Covid vaccination as we do for influenza now as Covid becomes the dominant virus.
The problem with easing restrictions is many will want everything open at once - the desire for "normality" is strong even though the life we had pre-Covid will never return - and while I've enjoyed a certain nostalgia at having my hair longer than at any time since my student days I'd welcome a de-thatching (perhaps I can persuade someone in Essex I'm an 18th century farmhouse in need of some maintenance).
While we've all wanted to be an agricultural building at some time, the post-Covid world is still hard to define. There will be an initial splurge of spending - those who have money will splash out on holidays and haircuts but to what extent will old habits die hard and to what extent will some of the new ways of life we've uncovered or discovered in the past year persist?
The risks of my being especially impacted by Covid are minimal. Absolutely insignificant compared to lots of known, extant conditions.
Lots of youngsters have made incredible sacrifices for the sake of the elderly. They should not be saddled with the debt as well.
20% extra IHT rate on boomers, to pay for Covid regulations that limited the freedom of youngsters to protect them? Now you're talking.
Edit to add:
No thanks to the perpetually under threat of lockdown idea.
Canada has defended its decision to draw on a supply of coronavirus vaccines from a global inoculation-sharing initiative known as Covax.
Covax pools funds from wealthier countries to help buy vaccines for themselves and low-income nations.
The scheme has announced a plan to deliver more than 330 million vaccine doses in the first half of 2021.
Canada is the only member of the G7 group of rich countries listed as a Covax beneficiary at this stage.
Other wealthier countries, including New Zealand and Singapore, have requested an early allocation as well.
Most of the first doses available, though, will be delivered to low- and middle-income countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55932997
hmm... bit of a guess then. As that bloke on NCIS would say 'A gut feeling'.