Aren't CureVac German....We did a similar deal with a French company, which they described as the UK rolling out the red carpet to give them everything they wanted, while France / EU still at the Moroccan Bazaar looking for a new carpet.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
"Democracy should not be cancelled because of covid," says the Conservative spokesman. No problem. The Conservatives have already killed it off.
The latest wheeze of making candidates pay a small fortune to get their leaflets delivered to electors is the last straw. Campaigning is effectively at an end. The only messages getting through to electors will be the ones telling them how wonderful Johnson is.
"The Government can commit to go ahead with these polls with confidence" said another Conservativve spokesman (reported on another post). You bet they can! When you have rigged the entire system in your favour, you can be pretty confident about the result.
Campaigning does not have as much impact as campaigners pretend it does. Many many people never get anything more than a single leaflet from each candidate. My councillor admitted to me they didn't even canvass half the ward, the part I live in. Yes, a dedicated effort can make a difference, I have seen that as well, but it is not as common an experience as campaigners would like to think it is.
I'd prefer people being able to campaign properly, in fact it might welll have persuaded me that perhaps there should be a delay just to be on the safe side campaigning wise, but canvassers and the like are very much over egging the pudding on the point.
Indeed, unless you live in a marginal ward most people will not get more than 1 leaflet from each candidate and party.
The parties will instead focus their canvassing resources and follow up leaflets and GOTV efforts on their marginal and target wards.
Not least as many candidates may well just be paper candidates (not that it stops them winning sometimes!)
Independents is a key point, I haven't looked at the detail, hence why I've gone from dead set on May to being more open to a delay if it means more normal arrangements, but the point is being put too hard.
I think when people campaign a lot they confuse that with being absolutely a normal experience for everyone.
"Democracy should not be cancelled because of covid," says the Conservative spokesman. No problem. The Conservatives have already killed it off.
The latest wheeze of making candidates pay a small fortune to get their leaflets delivered to electors is the last straw. Campaigning is effectively at an end. The only messages getting through to electors will be the ones telling them how wonderful Johnson is.
"The Government can commit to go ahead with these polls with confidence" said another Conservativve spokesman (reported on another post). You bet they can! When you have rigged the entire system in your favour, you can be pretty confident about the result.
Campaigning does not have as much impact as campaigners pretend it does. Many many people never get anything more than a single leaflet from each candidate. My councillor admitted to me they didn't even canvass half the ward, the part I live in. Yes, a dedicated effort can make a difference, I have seen that as well, but it is not as common an experience as campaigners would like to think it is.
I'd prefer people being able to campaign properly, in fact it might welll have persuaded me that perhaps there should be a delay just to be on the safe side campaigning wise, but canvassers and the like are very much over egging the pudding on the point.
Campaigning is like an arms race. The only reason to do it because your opponent is doing it as well. If there were no political campaigns at all we would end up with more or less the same result, and (probably) a less truculent set of voters.
Given we've had shows about parish councils before, as has been noted for Vicar of Dibley (despite the common misconception about their status), why not indeed?
In Dibley that is likely to be the Parochial Church Council, which is a different animal, unless you know better.
eg Parish Council's do not deal with church music or flowers. A PCC is the organising committee for the charity which is the church (approx.).
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
Regular readers will be aware of my interest in the huge drop off in cases and deaths in India. After a sero study in Delhi found about 50% of the population has been exposed to it, this survey suggests that about a fifth of Inidans overall have.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
Yes, I agree if he chooses not to run then he will leave the announcement as late as possible. Just trying to understand when "late as possible" would be in practice.
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
Wonder if we'll ever get to the bottom of the claim that it was a Member State that asked for Article 16 to be triggered?
No - what she is saying is “it was someone else’s mistake. Of course I’m saying I’ll take responsibility but I’m going to make sure everyone thinks it was Gallina (regardless of whether it actually was)”
Would that be more or less responsibility than BJ claims to be taking for 110000+ plus Covid deaths?
Less, because how much responsibility he has for that is more complicated in terms of what was avoidable and what was not, however many he is responsible for as a result, whereas the Article 16 situation is a pretty clear thing X happened, how did it get authorised, with not so many variables, so an acknowledgement of responsibility is more direct. Plus obviously he wouldn't acknowledge specific things leading to X deaths.
On the most important matter of the day - oh Channel 4 what have you done? You’re not making Channel 4 better; you’re making cricket worse. And they used to be innovators....
The only thing worse than C4, will be the Indian broadcaster I’ve been watching all day.
Either no replays or replays over the next ball, the coverage regularly disappearing to a box in the corner for ads that don’t appear to be timed to the action on the field, commentators randomly breaking into Hindi, doing their ‘analysis’ bits during play, etc...
In defence of Channel 4 (not my usual standpoint) when you bag a short term cricket deal with 3 days notice I think the production was always going to be fairly basic (with an international stream). At least they did a better job of this than with the 2011 Athletics World Championships.
Ah, all done at the last minute, so they’ll not have a team there and have to make do with a satellite feed. Maybe they’ll get a full production for the next matches, even their own commentary from a studio in London would probably be better if they can’t travel.
Can’t say I remember the 2011 Athletics.
How come the India tour right weren't signed up ages ago? How come it resulted in such a last night deal? Don't Sky normally sign deals for overseas tours years into the future?
The Indian broadcaster Star India paid Cricket India for the global rights to the series, and up until a couple of weeks ago were going to run it on one of their own streaming services to the UK audience - until they realised the U.K. broadcast rights could be worth £20m to C4 or Sky.
Haven't all attempts at this model for the UK market failed miserably. Isn't it Eleven Sports (the guy who now owns Leeds) that has been very successful in using that model in many other countries, where he buys up rights and then streams them. They tried it in the UK and it failed terribly, with nobody willing to pay for the streams.
The UK demand for PPV sports is tiny, even the Premier League couldn’t make it work when they tried last year.
Sky and BT have had limited success with fight sports, but the number of subscriptions is a fraction of what the US gets, even adjusting for population.
IIRC the last big boxing heavyweight bout got over 2m $99 PPVs in the States, and 100k £19 PPVs in the UK.
Brits just don’t like paying for TV sports, unless it’s a monthly subscription.
Thanks for the article Mike. I tend to agree with you that JB will not be the candidate in the 2024 election. As far as the Democrats go, he has done his job, namely to get DJT out of office. As far as he is concerned, he's probably also done what he wanted to do - namely to be added to the list of Presidents (I'd argue a desire to protect his son may also have played a part but I know that's a very minority view).
Re the use of Executive Orders, I'd be wary of assuming that suggests a new found radicalism. EOs have a great advantage for someone like Biden who is a moderate facing progressive pressure - it gets him kudos for meeting the demands of the progressive wing but in the knowledge that many of the EOs are likely to be reversed at some point and / or overturned in the courts. It's an easy way of saying "look, I tried", useful when you don't have the excuse of a House controlled by your opponents to justify not taking action.
Re his successor, I really think the Democrat nomination is Harris' to lose. I just don't see how the current Democratic party is going to overlook a Black woman as nominee, especially against a white guy (even if he is gay). The only ways I could see her not being the nominee, bar Biden not standing again, is (a) she doesn't want it, and nothing either in her career or current actions suggest a hesitancy of going after office (and destiny) or (b) she does a Spiro Agnew and is forced to go. I'd put more money on (b) than (a).
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
Wonder if we'll ever get to the bottom of the claim that it was a Member State that asked for Article 16 to be triggered?
No - what she is saying is “it was someone else’s mistake. Of course I’m saying I’ll take responsibility but I’m going to make sure everyone thinks it was Gallina (regardless of whether it actually was)”
Correct.
She's bullshitting and misdirecting again.
She is mentioning 5 days for EU members to approve contracts, and a couple of weeks extra to get EHRA approval through.
The things that will kill EU Citizens are the 4-5 months the EU was behind in investing in vaccines and doing the early work in getting supply infrastructure in place from March to August 2020, and the decision to focus on buying a scarce resource rather than helping create it earlier. The irrecoverable part of that delay is now going on the critical path of EU rollout building up and finishing.
65% of EU Covid deaths have been since November 2020 to now, and that is without full new variant impact. Given that they are (in their optimistic target) talking about 70% vaccine by the autumn, starting in a bigger way in April, I do not see how that is going to slow down too much.
Current COVID death run rate in the EU is 100k per month. Tragedy unfolding, and even all UK excess vaccine supplies (which are fewer than I thought they were) would not scratch the surface.
On the last point - the UK vaccine capacity. It is worth noting in the discussions about helping other countries etc, that we are not building the billion dose a year level industry here in this country.
India is implementing a plan (in association with COVAX) to produce multiple billions of doses per year.
That's correct - but we do have a touch of extra capacity now, but only 10 or 20 million of our 140 million guaranteed supply.
Presumably the India COVAX deal is separate form the SII setup(?), as that is 100 million a month and India itself needs nearly 2 years of that level of supply.
So the UK has invested in around 600m per year worth of capacity between AZ, Novavax and Valneva at 6 sites across the country. These are essentially direct industry subsidies to build the capacity, we have reserved 260m of these for domestic use (100m AZ, 100m Valneva and 60m Novavax). In addition we have got the VMIC which will have around 150m worth of capacity to produce various types of vaccine under licence and another few projects are under consideration by the UK. I think the government may give GSK a mega subsidy to onshore vaccine manufacturing from Belgium for their CureVac global rights purchase.
Agree.
But our guaranteed and approved supply in rollout-timescales (ie first half of 2021) is currently AZ and Pfizer, which is 100 million plus 40 million).
Sorry - I should have been more precise. Brain slightly addled with spreadsheets this morning.
I think we have other approvals in place, but nothing currently delivering apart from those two. So any surplus for 'giving away' would have to come from AZ / Pfizer in the next (say) 2 months, which is where my 10-20 million comes from.
The latest wheeze of making candidates pay a small fortune to get their leaflets delivered to electors is the last straw. Campaigning is effectively at an end. The only messages getting through to electors will be the ones telling them how wonderful Johnson is.
Have the rules changed on delivery or something ?
Presumably the candidates now have to pay for postage for their leaflets, rather than relying on free volunteer leafleters - who aren’t allowed out because of covid restrictions?
Is leafleting banned though ? It's not meeting anyone and could reasonably be described as exercise..
We had a letter yesterday, apparently hand-delivered, inviting us to a Jehovah's Witnesses meeting.
The Surrey chief police officer said recently that distributing leaflets would be regarded as a criminal act and would be prosecuted accordingly.
I think the Government should allow a freepost. But the more difficult problem is nomination papers, which have to be signed in person by 10 local residents. How is that going to work?
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
Unusual - in my experience parishes outside of towns rarely have people who are on as party candidates, so the factioning which happens ends up being a lot murkier to sort out.
Parish meeting polls is a weird old area, which I think are still valid.
And the excluded chair and the disruptive councillors can hardly complain about their exclusions on the basis of non-compliance with the Standing Orders if, as they maintained, the committee meeting was illegitimate to begin with.
For on their own version of events, there was no valid committee meeting even taking place.
Jackie Weaver and John Smith. Total stars. The best of British.
But some of the others - phew! Hot fuzz. Strong Leavey vibe there in places.
I think the government should hold off having any vaccine passports until the vast majority of over adults have been given both doses of vaccine.
Young people have been asked to make great sacrifices for the last year so we didn't end up with half a million dead old people, if the oldies start getting back on their cruise ships at the first possible moment it would break the current social contract we have where we're all in it together.
It also puts pressure on the government to keep up the pace of rollout and not to stand down once the over 50s are done as many people my age expect. We'll be thrown to the dogs and all of our vaccines will be given away when it's our turn.
If all the old buggers went on s cruise I might get the chance of z Tesco delivery though
I probably fall into the category described, and my wife fancies a River Cruise for a big birthday later this year. Whether the Douro will open for cruises this summer I don't know! Don't fancy, as posted before, going through two or three customs points on the Rhine or Danube.
We have cruised worldwide and once on board customs posts have not been an issue, as the ship obtains customs clearance for all on board before anyone can embark
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
Unusual - in my experience parishes outside of towns rarely have people who are on as party candidates, so the factioning which happens ends up being a lot murkier to sort out.
Parish meeting polls is a weird old area, which I think are still valid.
Yes, parish councils are generally made up of local worthies, mainly retired and independents.
Political parties only tend to stand candidates for town councils, not parish councils
... Particularly at the Beeb, whose every hopeful mention of its cancellation includes the false claim that the Oakervee review said it would cost £106 billion. I suspect they're just unnerved at the thought when HS2 is opened management may move them all to Manchester.
Could be worse, they might get moved to Manchester without being able to zip back to civilisation on HS2.
But it doesn't go to civilisation from Manchester, only to Birmingham then London.
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Virtually nil cases in both countries I would suspect.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
... Particularly at the Beeb, whose every hopeful mention of its cancellation includes the false claim that the Oakervee review said it would cost £106 billion. I suspect they're just unnerved at the thought when HS2 is opened management may move them all to Manchester.
Could be worse, they might get moved to Manchester without being able to zip back to civilisation on HS2.
British regulators have received extra trial data from AstraZeneca that supports their view that the Covid-19 vaccine developed with Oxford University is effective in the elderly, a vaccines official said on Friday.
Britain has been rolling out the shot among all age groups after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was the first regulator to approve it in December, but some other European countries have said more data is needed before it is given to those over 65.
"Since (initial approval) we've seen more data coming through from AstraZeneca as more people are completing the trial, which highlights again that efficacy in the elderly is seen, and there's no evidence of lack of efficacy," Munir Pirmohamed, Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group said at a MHRA news briefing.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
British regulators have received extra trial data from AstraZeneca that supports their view that the Covid-19 vaccine developed with Oxford University is effective in the elderly, a vaccines official said on Friday.
Britain has been rolling out the shot among all age groups after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was the first regulator to approve it in December, but some other European countries have said more data is needed before it is given to those over 65.
"Since (initial approval) we've seen more data coming through from AstraZeneca as more people are completing the trial, which highlights again that efficacy in the elderly is seen, and there's no evidence of lack of efficacy," Munir Pirmohamed, Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group said at a MHRA news briefing.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
Summer of 2023 I'd guess because that's when the serious fundraising would start, If he's not on the DNC glory hole circuit by then he's not running.
British regulators have received extra trial data from AstraZeneca that supports their view that the Covid-19 vaccine developed with Oxford University is effective in the elderly, a vaccines official said on Friday.
Britain has been rolling out the shot among all age groups after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was the first regulator to approve it in December, but some other European countries have said more data is needed before it is given to those over 65.
"Since (initial approval) we've seen more data coming through from AstraZeneca as more people are completing the trial, which highlights again that efficacy in the elderly is seen, and there's no evidence of lack of efficacy," Munir Pirmohamed, Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group said at a MHRA news briefing.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for him to leave it that long.
Other Democrats will be looking to form exploratory committees, raise funds, and get out there in the early states. The pressure from his deputy and presumed preferred successor will be immense as that happens, because she will be tied until he formalises the position.
My bet would be an announcement on 20th November, 2022. That would follow the midterms and be his 80th birthday.
If those midterms go badly for the Democrats, Biden is a lame duck anyway - his domestic agenda is over. If they go well then Harris is probably unbeatable in the primaries and can take charge of the domestic agenda two years early.
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
Unusual - in my experience parishes outside of towns rarely have people who are on as party candidates, so the factioning which happens ends up being a lot murkier to sort out.
Parish meeting polls is a weird old area, which I think are still valid.
Yes, parish councils are generally made up of local worthies, mainly retired and independents.
Political parties only tend to stand candidates for town councils, not parish councils
Our Parish council is certainly locals. Worthies is perhaps a bit of a stretch.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
I did love it, but frankly many parishes are likes that, just dialled down one or two notches.
My favourite was a predominantly Tory PC in my then patch with two rival factions, famously combative - for example, they condemned all the local churches for not discussing their arrangements for Easter with the PC. One member was UKIP, and succeeded in intiating a Parish Council referendum of all residents on EU membership.
Did you hear Anna Soubry on Today this morning.
She was excellent value on Stapleford and Kimberley, especially on the former bouncer with the red camo meeting David Cameron.
Pressure is growing on the government over its support for a new coalmine in Cumbria, as the UK prepares to host the most important UN climate summit since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.
Developing country experts, scientists, green campaigners and government advisers are increasingly concerned about the seeming contradiction of ministers backing the new mine – the UK’s first new deep coalmine in three decades, which will produce coking coal, mostly for export, until 2049 – while gathering support from world leaders for a fresh deal on the climate crisis.
The Guardian would clearly prefer that we import the coal from some stinky plant out of sight in India or China, rather than produce it cleanly and efficiently at home.
It's coking coal for steelworks. It should not be controversial in the slightest.
HS2 is designed to take traffic off the roads and put it on a railway powered by renewable energy. It should not be controversial in the slightest (at least from an environmental point of view).
Yet a random nutter actually shut Euston Station the other day climbing on the roof to protest about it.
Is HS2 actually going to generate the electricity itself? If not, we'd be better off not wasting the green energy.
So, we'd be better off environmentally continuing to import 55 million barrels of oil a year to power aircraft, cars and lorries?
(Yes, cars may go electric within a few years of HS2 opening. The other two won't.)
I think it's very naive to assume that HS2 will have much of an impact of road/air traffic. As I understand it, the real case for HS2 is on capacity (i.e. the WCML is close to capacity). That obviously looks a little suspect given what COVID has done to usage.
It is about capacity, and about increasing capacity to divert traffic from elsewhere. But then, this is like Sindy or Brexit (or indeed the coal mine). It ultimately seems to be about emotions rather than facts. Particularly at the Beeb, whose every hopeful mention of its cancellation includes the false claim that the Oakervee review said it would cost £106 billion. I suspect they're just unnerved at the thought when HS2 is opened management may move them all to Manchester.
It's not like the coal mine. To make steel, you need coke. It's an ingredient. Perhaps the environment nutters want to ban the production of steel, but I'd have thought it very much a minority view. If there's a business case for mining it off Cumbria, great.
HS2 is infrastructure investment, which is very much not a no-brainer even before COVID revolutionizes the way we live and work. Personally I'm happy as my brother-in-law works for Network Rail and as long as HS2 is being built, the government cannot possibly scale back spending on the regular network. It would look utterly horrific. But would I be spending money on a new railway line? No.
Prior to Covid HS2 had a purpose. By separating out slow and fast trains on to different tracks you can massively increase capacity. From memory post HS2 4 to 5 times as many trains can use the tracks as can currently use it.
Not quite that much! It increases capacity from around 16tph at present to around 30 (from memory) while HS2 itself will have 18 (best case scenario, more likely 14). So it wouldn't quite triple it.
Future governments will control the viability of HS2 through the planning process. For example, there's a huge country estate just east of Birmingham Interchange absolutely ripe for development. How many people currently travel from Little Packington to Oak Royal? I venture to suggest zero, so there's 'no demand'. But by 2040, when the former is the nucleus of an ecotown and the latter is wall-to-wall skyscrapers, it will seem perfectly normal to commute to head office that way.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
I'd be surprised if it was Pence, the Trump faction won't forgive him for err... following the law regarding the ECV count.
On that poll of GOP voters, taken after Pence followed the law on the ECV count, Pence is on 21% ie more than Trump Jr, Cruz and Hawley combined so I disagree.
Pence is closer to Trump than Romney and Haley but distanced himself enough from Trump in terms of trying to overturn the vote to present himself as the establishment candidate in 2024 (assuming Trump does not run again, in which case he would likely win the nomination again).
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
As far as I can tell the Scottish vaccine rollout is going pretty well to plan in terms of timetbabling when the various group will be offered vaccination but hard to tell as the plan document is a "living" document that is revised and I can't find old versions of it.
Apparently by the end of Feb Scottish Vaccination capacity will be 400,000 a week.
The latest wheeze of making candidates pay a small fortune to get their leaflets delivered to electors is the last straw. Campaigning is effectively at an end. The only messages getting through to electors will be the ones telling them how wonderful Johnson is.
Have the rules changed on delivery or something ?
Presumably the candidates now have to pay for postage for their leaflets, rather than relying on free volunteer leafleters - who aren’t allowed out because of covid restrictions?
Is leafleting banned though ? It's not meeting anyone and could reasonably be described as exercise..
We had a letter yesterday, apparently hand-delivered, inviting us to a Jehovah's Witnesses meeting.
The Surrey chief police officer said recently that distributing leaflets would be regarded as a criminal act and would be prosecuted accordingly.
I think the Government should allow a freepost. But the more difficult problem is nomination papers, which have to be signed in person by 10 local residents. How is that going to work?
"Almost all vaccines developed through this partnership against new Covid-19 strains will be variants of an existing jab by CureVac which is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials, meaning it should be possible to accelerate clinical trials ahead of submission to the regulator for approval. The UK will use its partnership with CureVac to boost the UK’s capacity to develop and manufacture variant vaccines in the UK, strengthening our domestic capabilities."
Confirms domestic manufacturing for the CureVac deal, along with the GSK rights purchase this now becomes an all-domestic mRNA vaccine.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
No you are not. It baffles me, but then it always has. I enjoy activity holidays and some sight seeing, but I have no desire to sit on a beach and I am happy to delay the former activities until it is safe to do so.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for him to leave it that long.
Other Democrats will be looking to form exploratory committees, raise funds, and get out there in the early states. The pressure from his deputy and presumed preferred successor will be immense as that happens, because she will be tied until he formalises the position.
My bet would be an announcement on 20th November, 2022. That would follow the midterms and be his 80th birthday.
If those midterms go badly for the Democrats, Biden is a lame duck anyway - his domestic agenda is over. If they go well then Harris is probably unbeatable in the primaries and can take charge of the domestic agenda two years early.
It will certainly not be as early as November 2022, that would leave Biden a lame duck for the second half of his term and he is too shrewd to allow that.
The first primaries and caucuses are not until January 2024, plenty of time to announce in autumn 2023.
Interesting that rents are going down and yet prices up. One of those can't sustain forever.
I think I mentioned this some weeks ago. I would say a fallout of zombie landlord businesses in London ie those which have been predicated on property price rises.
And maybe a move to owner occupation, which will especially benefit public sector types who have more money after working all hours through the pandemic.
Possibly mitigated by a move back in of eg Eastern European Ts who gave notice and returned home during the last 12 months. If the economy recovers, and depending on the Brexit hit.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
And the excluded chair and the disruptive councillors can hardly complain about their exclusions on the basis of non-compliance with the Standing Orders if, as they maintained, the committee meeting was illegitimate to begin with.
For on their own version of events, there was no valid committee meeting even taking place.
Jackie Weaver and John Smith. Total stars. The best of British.
But some of the others - phew! Hot fuzz. Strong Leavey vibe there in places.
The speed with which life has had to adapt to not meeting according to traditional norms, and the inevitable slowness of adapting the rule books to the online world (they are complicated and accrete over decades) gives endless opportunities to objectors and standing order fans. I have no idea whether all sorts of stuff I am involved in is truly legal, and the great majority of people sensibly don't ask and don't want to find out.
"Almost all vaccines developed through this partnership against new Covid-19 strains will be variants of an existing jab by CureVac which is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials, meaning it should be possible to accelerate clinical trials ahead of submission to the regulator for approval. The UK will use its partnership with CureVac to boost the UK’s capacity to develop and manufacture variant vaccines in the UK, strengthening our domestic capabilities."
Confirms domestic manufacturing for the CureVac deal, along with the GSK rights purchase this now becomes an all-domestic mRNA vaccine.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Our pharma industry is a big source of national pride I'd say right now.
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
No you are not. It baffles me, but then it always has. I enjoy activity holidays and some sight seeing, but I have no desire to sit on a beach and I am happy to delay the former activities until it is safe to do so.
I used to get on a plane for business or pleasure every couple of weeks, but there’s a bloody global pandemic happening, and I have no desire whatsoever to go near a plane until it’s gone away!
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
Fantastic double-century partnership with a real captain's innings so far from Root. Very goot strike rate so far for him too.
Imagine how many he'd score with a proper technique @FrancisUrquhart
But it's enormously impressive how fast he's adapted to subcontinental conditions. The big stride in, soft hands, guiding the ball with the spin. This is a good attack. To take everything they throw at him for 90 overs in just his third match in the subcontinent is a very fine achievement.
Even though he has given it away in the last over, which is a bit of a shame, he's done his job.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
The very first thing the Government (any government) will do upon them being commercially available is ban any owner or driver from using them - even as a 100% passenger - whilst under the influence. There will be an incident sooner or later that's ambiguous on the face of it, even though it isn't, which will generate a tabloid headline, and that will be that.
They will therefore kill off the main rationale for them for many people - i.e. as a personal taxi to support rural pubs and restaurants, and go out with friends.
You're welcome.
It wouldn't require legislation; drunk in charge is already drunk in charge.
But that is a lesser offence than the actual act of driving under the influence. Drunk in Charge , if I recall correctly, doesn’t have the mandatory 1year ban and can instead be punished with 11 penalty points. (Again this is from memory)
So the question of how the law would define using a self driving car while pissed is still a legitimate one, surely?
Anyone who thinks that being off your face in charge of a driverless car will be treated as anything other than the same as being off your face in a car they are driving, must be, er, off their face.
The legal question will be whether you will actually have any control over it. If you don't, there's no problem. But more likely there'll be some emergency buttons to make it stop or swerve, which when drunk it might be tempting to have a play with....
Another big problem there is that at some point, you'll have drivers on the road who learned to drive on automated vehicles and don't actually have any experience worth relying on. Teaching them sufficient awareness to know what to do in an emergency is likely to be extremely difficult.
More generally, as others have said, automated vehicles are kind of an all-or-nothing deal. Fully automated with no human input is much simpler to implement than mostly automated. But it also means the tech has to be damn near perfect, which is an incredibly hard place to get to. Even if it could be proved to reduce accidents by (say) 50% on average, I think it would be very hard to get public opinion onside for it.
If its proven to reduce accidents the insurance rate will take care of it being introduced.
I don't think this is right (and I am pretty close to this issue).
Firstly, the current crop of specialist motor insurers are unlikely to adapt well to automated vehicles as it's a completely different risk profile. I can't see them wanting to have to adapt or go out of business.
Second, even if it reduces frequency, each claim is likely to cost far more, as the parts involved are going to be expensive - we have already seen significant claims inflation in recent years due to the huge increase in technology used in cars over the past decade or so.
Third, it raises the prospect of catastrophe claims, which are currently almost a non-issue in the UK and European markets, via things like mass hacking (eg a group takes over a fleet and uses them to block a bridge or key junction, or as part of a robbery), or just because a bug in the code is linked to a series of accidents.
Finally, remember that insurers make money by accepting risk, and an overall reduction in it isn't necessarily good for them. Reducing the overall level of risk whilst increasing volatility (which is what self driving cars should be doing) is pretty much the opposite of what they want.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Hopefully this might rub off on some other parts of government. There are clearly some smart people working very hard, and it would be nice to apply some of the skills and knowledge on other projects.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for him to leave it that long.
Other Democrats will be looking to form exploratory committees, raise funds, and get out there in the early states. The pressure from his deputy and presumed preferred successor will be immense as that happens, because she will be tied until he formalises the position.
My bet would be an announcement on 20th November, 2022. That would follow the midterms and be his 80th birthday.
If those midterms go badly for the Democrats, Biden is a lame duck anyway - his domestic agenda is over. If they go well then Harris is probably unbeatable in the primaries and can take charge of the domestic agenda two years early.
It will certainly not be as early as November 2022, that would leave Biden a lame duck for the second half of his term and he is too shrewd to allow that.
The first primaries and caucuses are not until January 2024, plenty of time to announce in autumn 2023.
I bet you can "read the tea leaves" though - I imagine that if it all goes well in the midterms, Harris will become ever more prominent after the holiday season, and through spring 2023 until it is entirely unsurprisingly announced pre-holiday season of that year.
"Almost all vaccines developed through this partnership against new Covid-19 strains will be variants of an existing jab by CureVac which is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials, meaning it should be possible to accelerate clinical trials ahead of submission to the regulator for approval. The UK will use its partnership with CureVac to boost the UK’s capacity to develop and manufacture variant vaccines in the UK, strengthening our domestic capabilities."
Confirms domestic manufacturing for the CureVac deal, along with the GSK rights purchase this now becomes an all-domestic mRNA vaccine.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Our pharma industry is a big source of national pride I'd say right now.
Agreed, not just the sector but everyone involved with the effort. We're at the forefront of securing vaccines that won't just help us, but will also help the whole world.
"Almost all vaccines developed through this partnership against new Covid-19 strains will be variants of an existing jab by CureVac which is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials, meaning it should be possible to accelerate clinical trials ahead of submission to the regulator for approval. The UK will use its partnership with CureVac to boost the UK’s capacity to develop and manufacture variant vaccines in the UK, strengthening our domestic capabilities."
Confirms domestic manufacturing for the CureVac deal, along with the GSK rights purchase this now becomes an all-domestic mRNA vaccine.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Interesting that rents are going down and yet prices up. One of those can't sustain forever.
Prices arent really going up imo. The mix of properties that can get sold is skewed higher due to demand for gardens and cladding issues preventing lower value flats being sold.
Fantastic double-century partnership with a real captain's innings so far from Root. Very goot strike rate so far for him too.
Imagine how many he'd score with a proper technique @FrancisUrquhart
But it's enormously impressive how fast he's adapted to subcontinental conditions. The big stride in, soft hands, guiding the ball with the spin. This is a good attack. To take everything they throw at him for 90 overs in just his third match in the subcontinent is a very fine achievement.
Even though he has given it away in the last over, which is a bit of a shame, he's done his job.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
The latest wheeze of making candidates pay a small fortune to get their leaflets delivered to electors is the last straw. Campaigning is effectively at an end. The only messages getting through to electors will be the ones telling them how wonderful Johnson is.
Have the rules changed on delivery or something ?
Presumably the candidates now have to pay for postage for their leaflets, rather than relying on free volunteer leafleters - who aren’t allowed out because of covid restrictions?
Is leafleting banned though ? It's not meeting anyone and could reasonably be described as exercise..
That would be reasonable, Mr Pulpstar, I agree entirely. But the Conservatives are planning to use covid as an excuse to ban all voluntary activity.
This hits all parties who rely on volunteers to get their message out to the electors, and favours those with lots of money who can pay for delivery.
Perhaps young HY can come along and give us the official Conservative spin on this.....
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
Whilst I agree @Sandpit I think it would be fair to say you are probably not on your third continuous day of sleet and rain!
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
Hopefully this might rub off on some other parts of government. There are clearly some smart people working very hard, and it would be nice to apply some of the skills and knowledge on other projects.
There was a certain advisor trying his best to get this sort of thinking much more prevalent within government.
It didn’t work, there’s way too much institutional inertia and they are going to have to inch towards it over a long period of time. Maybe they can start the slow process of learning what they can from the vaccine rollout.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
PPP poll on 2016 Republican nomination, 31 January 2013-3 February 2013:
Marco Rubio 22% Paul Ryan 15% Jeb Bush 13% Chris Christie 13% Mike Huckabee 11% Rand Paul 10% Bobby Jindal 4% Rick Perry 3% Susana Martinez 1%
So it "looked like Marco Rubio will be GOP nominee" at this stage in that cycle. Trump wasn't even on the radar, and nor was Ted Cruz who came second, and nor indeed was John Kasich who was third in vote share (Rubio was third in delegates).
So these polls are all fine but are basically "who do you know who you can imagine being your party's candidate?" at this stage. And it's not unusual for the big name to come through - Biden did for the Democrats. But it doesn't really tell us a lot - of course it's easy to imagine someone who has just been VP for four years and appeared on the ballot paper just below Trump being the GOP candidate. Does it mean there's any depth or solidity to that support? No.
Indeed, Paul Ryan was in a similar position to Pence now having been number two on the Romney ticket (although unlike Pence he hadn't actually been VP). 15% was very respectable like Pence's 21%. But fast forward four years and he'd sniffed around the idea of running but didn't see a path and didn't bother.
If Biden did not seek a second term, at what point would he (realistically) need to confirm it? Presumably some time before the Jan 2024 Iowa caucuses? Just trying to understand how long I'd be locking up money in a lay Biden bet.
If he is sensible he would not confirm he was not seeking re election until autumn 2023, otherwise he would be a lame duck and that seems to be the strategy he is pursuing.
It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for him to leave it that long.
Other Democrats will be looking to form exploratory committees, raise funds, and get out there in the early states. The pressure from his deputy and presumed preferred successor will be immense as that happens, because she will be tied until he formalises the position.
My bet would be an announcement on 20th November, 2022. That would follow the midterms and be his 80th birthday.
If those midterms go badly for the Democrats, Biden is a lame duck anyway - his domestic agenda is over. If they go well then Harris is probably unbeatable in the primaries and can take charge of the domestic agenda two years early.
It will certainly not be as early as November 2022, that would leave Biden a lame duck for the second half of his term and he is too shrewd to allow that.
The first primaries and caucuses are not until January 2024, plenty of time to announce in autumn 2023.
I bet you can "read the tea leaves" though - I imagine that if it all goes well in the midterms, Harris will become ever more prominent after the holiday season, and through spring 2023 until it is entirely unsurprisingly announced pre-holiday season of that year.
Maybe late summer but Biden will not want Harris to effectively be seen as President in all but name only halfway through his term.
Plus if the midterms go badly but Biden still polls better than Harris he may decide to run for re election anyway
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Virtually nil cases in both countries I would suspect.
Perhaps, though I expect some bilateral arrangements to be put in place this summer, like that mooted for Greece, that do allow overseas holidays; a combination of vaccination and testing on departure and arrival. Personally, I’d forego an overseas holiday this year if that meant things could return to normal and stay that way. I have no idea which way the Government will go.
Do we know whether this means jabbed once or jabbed twice? Given the report this morning that Greece, for example, will require both jabs before entry it may affect Granny’s chance of spending May in Mykonos.
Pretty certain it means once, which would require an uptick in our current rate but achievable.
Two doses would mean a very big increase.
Having flights to Athens for June, we are hanging on in hope (naive perhaps) that we will be able to go having had both jabs, being in the 60-65 group. Of course, it may be technically possible but worries about the importation of some new variant mean that we choose not to go anyway.
You'll likely get two weeks in a hotel on your return for your troubles, vaccinated or not.
Not according to the Times...
That doesn't say anything about what will happen on your return.
Fair point, however the report goes on to say that U.K. officials have told the Greek Tourism Ministry that U.K. vaccinations are so far ahead that U.K. holiday makers will save the Greek summer season. That doesn’t suggest that U.K. holiday makers are going to have to quarantine on their return, though I accept the point isn’t explicit.
If there is still an outbreak in Greece do you really think they will be letting people come back without quarantining after finally getting the bug under control?
I’d be surprised if the Greeks and U.K. are discussing arrangements, to make holidays feasible this summer, that involve 10 days quarantine in the U.K. with a £1,000 hotel bill for returning holidaymakers. Such an arrangement wouldn’t save the Greek summer season.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Am I the only one who really doesn’t get this holidays obsession?
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
Whilst I agree @Sandpit I think it would be fair to say you are probably not on your third continuous day of sleet and rain!
You are indeed correct. We are expecting rain next week though, it’s very late arriving this winter.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
AOC would challenge Harris and Buttigieg if Biden did not run again in 2024 certainly
She is certainly the obvious one right now. And she has a huge and dedicated following, at least on social media. They're probably concentrated in the wrong places to really help her win the nomination. I doubt she'd make much headway in the Southern states that refused to vote for anyone but Biden this time around, and I cannot see the wider Democrat party being dumb enough to pick her.
No but AOC would pick up the torch of the Democratic left from Sanders.
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
And the excluded chair and the disruptive councillors can hardly complain about their exclusions on the basis of non-compliance with the Standing Orders if, as they maintained, the committee meeting was illegitimate to begin with.
For on their own version of events, there was no valid committee meeting even taking place.
Jackie Weaver and John Smith. Total stars. The best of British.
But some of the others - phew! Hot fuzz. Strong Leavey vibe there in places.
The speed with which life has had to adapt to not meeting according to traditional norms, and the inevitable slowness of adapting the rule books to the online world (they are complicated and accrete over decades) gives endless opportunities to objectors and standing order fans. I have no idea whether all sorts of stuff I am involved in is truly legal, and the great majority of people sensibly don't ask and don't want to find out.
And also the fact a zoom meeting can end up online and viral. That's tough if you've made a total dick of yourself like "Brian" on this one. Feel a bit sorry for him. It's a good job we're in lockdown because he probably wouldn't have been able to show his face down the local for a couple of weeks.
Wife duly vaccinated. I think I erroneously said she was group 6 yesterday - total brain fart, she is group 4.
My wife had her Pride of England AZ shot earlier this week. She was quite ill for about a day but is now up and about catching up on her Dura Ace bollocking backlog.
I'm not liking all the "feel crook for 48 hours" reportage. Might not have it now. Big side benefit of that is I will accrue immense moral authority to argue for a global priority for the vaccine. People will have to sit up and listen.
Woke up this morning with a sore arm after getting Phizered yesterday. Don't know why it's so much more painful than the annual flu shot. Maybe they have to dig deeper, or perhaps the jabber was knackered after a long day's work. Anyway, at least it was injected where the sun occasionally shines. Chin up.
On topic (why do I have to say that): I don't think Biden will run again, although I think it's a bit more than the 20-25% chance currently available. But if he doesn't, then I think Harris almost certainly will - why wouldn't she? And then I don't see how she can be stopped by a fellow member of her administration.
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Buttigieg may be a VP choice for Harris of course.
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
At the moment it looks like Pence will be the GOP nominee, assuming Trump does not run again
PPP poll on 2016 Republican nomination, 31 January 2013-3 February 2013:
Marco Rubio 22% Paul Ryan 15% Jeb Bush 13% Chris Christie 13% Mike Huckabee 11% Rand Paul 10% Bobby Jindal 4% Rick Perry 3% Susana Martinez 1%
So it "looked like Marco Rubio will be GOP nominee" at this stage in that cycle. Trump wasn't even on the radar, and nor was Ted Cruz who came second, and nor indeed was John Kasich who was third in vote share (Rubio was third in delegates).
So these polls are all fine but are basically "who do you know who you can imagine being your party's candidate?" at this stage. And it's not unusual for the big name to come through - Biden did for the Democrats. But it doesn't really tell us a lot - of course it's easy to imagine someone who has just been VP for four years and appeared on the ballot paper just below Trump being the GOP candidate. Does it mean there's any depth or solidity to that support? No.
That poll excluded Trump and Cruz and Kasich so is not really relevant as you state. As Rubio came 4th in 2016 on votes and 3rd on delegates won it was also actually correct of the candidates included.
It was also a poll for a candidate after 8 years of the party out of the White House, not to challenge an incumbent President or indeed even an incumbent VP.
Most candidates who challenge incumbent Presidents tend to be from the party establishment eg Biden, Romney, Kerry, Dole, Mondale etc so it is highly likely the GOP will pick an establishment candidate like Pence in 2024, assuming Trump does not run again in which case he would likely get it.
Comments
Independents is a key point, I haven't looked at the detail, hence why I've gone from dead set on May to being more open to a delay if it means more normal arrangements, but the point is being put too hard.
I think when people campaign a lot they confuse that with being absolutely a normal experience for everyone.
That's what Imperial was working on. Shame that got canned.
eg Parish Council's do not deal with church music or flowers. A PCC is the organising committee for the charity which is the church (approx.).
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1357592341746503683
Under those circumstances, Buttigieg has two basic options. He can say she was crap as VP - in which case why did he happily serve alongside her for four years as Transport Sec? Or he can go after her previous record, which is unlikely to stick. Attacking her personality and character after four years in the White House is unlikely to be effective, in my view. And Buttigieg has absolutely no need to challenge in 2024, as he will have loads more chances down the line and plenty of space to build up his CV before he does. So, no deal at 5%.
My guess is that the only likely challenge to Harris (if Biden doesn't stand again) comes from the Sanders wing of the party, claiming that Biden wasn't radical enough and Harris won't be either. Warren might fancy one last shot - I think it will be very difficult for anyone but another woman to beat Harris as the optics would be awful.
Edit: I should add: unless there's an economic (or other) catastrophe between now and then. In which case all bets are off, but most likely it takes Buttigieg out the reckoning just as much as anyone else.
Sky and BT have had limited success with fight sports, but the number of subscriptions is a fraction of what the US gets, even adjusting for population.
IIRC the last big boxing heavyweight bout got over 2m $99 PPVs in the States, and 100k £19 PPVs in the UK.
Brits just don’t like paying for TV sports, unless it’s a monthly subscription.
Re the use of Executive Orders, I'd be wary of assuming that suggests a new found radicalism. EOs have a great advantage for someone like Biden who is a moderate facing progressive pressure - it gets him kudos for meeting the demands of the progressive wing but in the knowledge that many of the EOs are likely to be reversed at some point and / or overturned in the courts. It's an easy way of saying "look, I tried", useful when you don't have the excuse of a House controlled by your opponents to justify not taking action.
Re his successor, I really think the Democrat nomination is Harris' to lose. I just don't see how the current Democratic party is going to overlook a Black woman as nominee, especially against a white guy (even if he is gay). The only ways I could see her not being the nominee, bar Biden not standing again, is (a) she doesn't want it, and nothing either in her career or current actions suggest a hesitancy of going after office (and destiny) or (b) she does a Spiro Agnew and is forced to go. I'd put more money on (b) than (a).
One key question is whether it looks like Trump (or one of kids) is going to be the GOP nominee.
But our guaranteed and approved supply in rollout-timescales (ie first half of 2021) is currently AZ and Pfizer, which is 100 million plus 40 million).
Sorry - I should have been more precise. Brain slightly addled with spreadsheets this morning.
I think we have other approvals in place, but nothing currently delivering apart from those two. So any surplus for 'giving away' would have to come from AZ / Pfizer in the next (say) 2 months, which is where my 10-20 million comes from.
I think the Government should allow a freepost. But the more difficult problem is nomination papers, which have to be signed in person by 10 local residents. How is that going to work?
Parish meeting polls is a weird old area, which I think are still valid.
But some of the others - phew! Hot fuzz. Strong Leavey vibe there in places.
The broader question I guess is what conditions would allow overseas holidays to happen without overly onerous arrangements at the beginning or end of the holiday?
Political parties only tend to stand candidates for town councils, not parish councils
British regulators have received extra trial data from AstraZeneca that supports their view that the Covid-19 vaccine developed with Oxford University is effective in the elderly, a vaccines official said on Friday.
Britain has been rolling out the shot among all age groups after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was the first regulator to approve it in December, but some other European countries have said more data is needed before it is given to those over 65.
"Since (initial approval) we've seen more data coming through from AstraZeneca as more people are completing the trial, which highlights again that efficacy in the elderly is seen, and there's no evidence of lack of efficacy," Munir Pirmohamed, Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group said at a MHRA news briefing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-covid-vaccine-priority-groups-nhs-lockdown/
Edited: added key bit about no evidence of lack of efficacy amongst the oldies.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1356836849533284352?s=20
Other Democrats will be looking to form exploratory committees, raise funds, and get out there in the early states. The pressure from his deputy and presumed preferred successor will be immense as that happens, because she will be tied until he formalises the position.
My bet would be an announcement on 20th November, 2022. That would follow the midterms and be his 80th birthday.
If those midterms go badly for the Democrats, Biden is a lame duck anyway - his domestic agenda is over. If they go well then Harris is probably unbeatable in the primaries and can take charge of the domestic agenda two years early.
https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1357639706905829376?s=20
https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1357639718620581888?s=20
Worthies is perhaps a bit of a stretch.
She was excellent value on Stapleford and Kimberley, especially on the former bouncer with the red camo meeting David Cameron.
At 2:22:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000rww3
Pence is closer to Trump than Romney and Haley but distanced himself enough from Trump in terms of trying to overturn the vote to present himself as the establishment candidate in 2024 (assuming Trump does not run again, in which case he would likely win the nomination again).
Why would be even be discussing holidays abroad when the damn virus is all over the place?
The likeliest scenario is that by the summer the U.K. is pretty much vaccinated, most of Europe very much not, and more virus mutations out there which might be resistant to the vaccine.
We should be shutting the borders, and encouraging everyone to spend their money domestically.
As far as I can tell the Scottish vaccine rollout is going pretty well to plan in terms of timetbabling when the various group will be offered vaccination but hard to tell as the plan document is a "living" document that is revised and I can't find old versions of it.
Apparently by the end of Feb Scottish Vaccination capacity will be 400,000 a week.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55938380
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/row-over-political-leafleting-during-4955541
"Almost all vaccines developed through this partnership against new Covid-19 strains will be variants of an existing jab by CureVac which is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials, meaning it should be possible to accelerate clinical trials ahead of submission to the regulator for approval. The UK will use its partnership with CureVac to boost the UK’s capacity to develop and manufacture variant vaccines in the UK, strengthening our domestic capabilities."
Confirms domestic manufacturing for the CureVac deal, along with the GSK rights purchase this now becomes an all-domestic mRNA vaccine.
Honestly, I'm shocked at the competency with which this is being carried out.
The first primaries and caucuses are not until January 2024, plenty of time to announce in autumn 2023.
And maybe a move to owner occupation, which will especially benefit public sector types who have more money after working all hours through the pandemic.
Possibly mitigated by a move back in of eg Eastern European Ts who gave notice and returned home during the last 12 months. If the economy recovers, and depending on the Brexit hit.
https://twitter.com/VVSLaxman281/status/1357639852129308672
Firstly, the current crop of specialist motor insurers are unlikely to adapt well to automated vehicles as it's a completely different risk profile. I can't see them wanting to have to adapt or go out of business.
Second, even if it reduces frequency, each claim is likely to cost far more, as the parts involved are going to be expensive - we have already seen significant claims inflation in recent years due to the huge increase in technology used in cars over the past decade or so.
Third, it raises the prospect of catastrophe claims, which are currently almost a non-issue in the UK and European markets, via things like mass hacking (eg a group takes over a fleet and uses them to block a bridge or key junction, or as part of a robbery), or just because a bug in the code is linked to a series of accidents.
Finally, remember that insurers make money by accepting risk, and an overall reduction in it isn't necessarily good for them. Reducing the overall level of risk whilst increasing volatility (which is what self driving cars should be doing) is pretty much the opposite of what they want.
Fear of Covid is specifically mentioned as a reason.
And with a very Ian Bell-like ability to give it away when set.
As Root frequently does as well, come to think of it.
This hits all parties who rely on volunteers to get their message out to the electors, and favours those with lots of money who can pay for delivery.
Perhaps young HY can come along and give us the official Conservative spin on this.....
I think that list overstates Hawley's chances.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1357665977132085248?s=19
It didn’t work, there’s way too much institutional inertia and they are going to have to inch towards it over a long period of time. Maybe they can start the slow process of learning what they can from the vaccine rollout.
Marco Rubio 22%
Paul Ryan 15%
Jeb Bush 13%
Chris Christie 13%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rand Paul 10%
Bobby Jindal 4%
Rick Perry 3%
Susana Martinez 1%
So it "looked like Marco Rubio will be GOP nominee" at this stage in that cycle. Trump wasn't even on the radar, and nor was Ted Cruz who came second, and nor indeed was John Kasich who was third in vote share (Rubio was third in delegates).
So these polls are all fine but are basically "who do you know who you can imagine being your party's candidate?" at this stage. And it's not unusual for the big name to come through - Biden did for the Democrats. But it doesn't really tell us a lot - of course it's easy to imagine someone who has just been VP for four years and appeared on the ballot paper just below Trump being the GOP candidate. Does it mean there's any depth or solidity to that support? No.
Indeed, Paul Ryan was in a similar position to Pence now having been number two on the Romney ticket (although unlike Pence he hadn't actually been VP). 15% was very respectable like Pence's 21%. But fast forward four years and he'd sniffed around the idea of running but didn't see a path and didn't bother.
Plus if the midterms go badly but Biden still polls better than Harris he may decide to run for re election anyway
Vaccines Could Blunt U.K. Epidemic in Weeks
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/04/world/europe/covid-vaccine-uk-rate.html
If she won the nomination and Pence won the GOP nomination, Pence would arguably then be the moderate candidate against her.
Don’t suppose the egregious Dr Peters has finished spouting his asinine bs masquerading as serious analysis though.
Could we invite him onto PB to raise the amusement factor?
It was also a poll for a candidate after 8 years of the party out of the White House, not to challenge an incumbent President or indeed even an incumbent VP.
Most candidates who challenge incumbent Presidents tend to be from the party establishment eg Biden, Romney, Kerry, Dole, Mondale etc so it is highly likely the GOP will pick an establishment candidate like Pence in 2024, assuming Trump does not run again in which case he would likely get it.