Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
Sadly, our Dart Music Festival - largest free festival in the south west - has come a little too early in the year so will have to be canned for the second year running. So frustrating - even more so if the number of cases has fallen off a cliff by early May.
I agree. Can`t it be moved back in the year?
Nah, we looked at that. We have the Regatta and Food Festival to work around/not piss off too. Then you have to book the acts - many of whom agreed to come again in May after being booked last year, but trying to arrange another 120+ acts of similar top quality live performers for some point later in the year just proved logistically horrible.
Second weekend in May 2022 it is then. You should all come down. It's a blast.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
It's a big moment. Cheered me up too. Very down about the Tiger Woods car crash and so a bit of good vibe was needed.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
This reflects one of three things:
(1) The government is slowing down the roll-out of vaccines to younger groups, because it feels it can get more bang for the buck in vaccinating older cohorts twice
(2) There are worries about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine if the doses are spaced too far apart (see Scotland), and therefore they are moving them closer together
(3) Vaccine supply is increasing markedly, and therefore they are increasingly confident of their ability to meet targets
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
To be pedantic (naturally), the second tranche of X are not equally high priority, since they are from the next cohort down the list.
But depending on how large the cohorts are, you might not be able to cover everyone in the cohort if you do not delay, so some people of equal priority would miss out?
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
Sadly, our Dart Music Festival - largest free festival in the south west - has come a little too early in the year so will have to be canned for the second year running. So frustrating - even more so if the number of cases has fallen off a cliff by early May.
I agree. Can`t it be moved back in the year?
Nah, we looked at that. We have the Regatta and Food Festival to work around/not piss off too. Then you have to book the acts - many of whom agreed to come again in May after being booked last year, but trying to arrange another 120+ acts of similar top quality live performers for some point later in the year just proved logistically horrible.
Second weekend in May 2022 it is then. You should all come down. It's a blast.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
This reflects one of three things:
(1) The government is slowing down the roll-out of vaccines to younger groups, because it feels it can get more bang for the buck in vaccinating older cohorts twice
(2) There are worries about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine if the doses are spaced too far apart (see Scotland), and therefore they are moving them closer together
(3) Vaccine supply is increasing markedly, and therefore they are increasingly confident of their ability to meet targets
My money is on (3).
There is a fourth possibility that the ability to ramp up capacity to manage the vaccinations is falling short (cf. last week’s relatively disappointing data), and they are bringing some of the second doses forward to spread them over a longer period, the alternative being that when the main cohort of second doses hits, first dose progress grinds to a halt.
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
ydoethur is not on the left.
He was noting that it is not his first name, I suspect Philip was thinking more generally of people who get anxious about the use of Boris, and specifically if they are anxious that it is not his 'real' name.
Yes, I know, but if there are people on the left genuinely agitated by that aspect, they too are missing the point about the "Boris" brand. The fact it's his middle name is neither here nor there.
Fwiw though, my recollection is of a good deal of fuss on pb about Gordon Brown and, from the other side, George Osborne, not using their given first names (which used to be a fairly common practice).
Fair enough. But it is a different point. One of my brothers uses his middle name as it happens. As you say, it's not that unusual.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
The EU does matter if you want to change the deal, but I do agree change is coming and of course those who lead change succeed while those who resist change fail
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I hate it when a fellow Yorkshireman pretends to be a man of the people when they are clearly not.
I cannot believe the electorate was so gullible to believe a person who went to an elite school and Oxbridge was a man of the people.
However, PBers are not representative of the wider electorate. So we aren't expecting to see you walking your whippet any time soon.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
How is your foreign lorry watch going?
Now that I have relocated to Buchan I rarely see any lorries that aren't from NE Scotland, never mind non-UK...
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
My tuppence worth would say publish everything. Presumably if she is confident in her case that would be the way in an open democracy to demonstrate it. Disclaimer: I cannot stand either of them!
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
Impossible to measure, but it's indisputable that the press is worth x seats to the Cons in most elections, where x is not a tiny number. Blair did a deal and so avoided being drenched in shit but this was the exception to the rule (of x).
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
It's because the press are owned by cigar chomping types for whom money is a tool to buy the influence they feel is their entitlement as "hommes des affaires". Rothermere. Barclay. Beaverbrook. Maxwell. Murdoch. Lebedev. Wells. Kane. Etc. They are usually arch capitalists with a fear of having their wings clipped by any Labour government not led by Tony Blair.
I have a plan.
Ask everyone not to buy those newspapers. Or subscribe to their online media presence.
Spread it around.
Before you know it they will be down to selling a few hundred copies in the shires and north London (you and ie @NickPalmer) and Novara Media and Socialist Worker will be in the ascendency.
To be pedantic (naturally), the second tranche of X are not equally high priority, since they are from the next cohort down the list.
But depending on how large the cohorts are, you might not be able to cover everyone in the cohort if you do not delay, so some people of equal priority would miss out?
To use a word I hate, you need better 'granularity' of the cohorts.
Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I fully support the 'delayed second dose' strategy.
It's a similar argument to the rapid antigen test / PCR debate.
In the latter case, while the claimed accuracy for the test is 99.9%, for the 30% or so who are asymptomatic, and are therefore extremely unlikely to be tested, the accuracy approaches 0%.
In October, some 58% of people from ethnic minorities said they would be likely to take the vaccine. This has increased to more than 80%. But, at the same time, the levels of white British supporting the jab has increased from nearly 80% in the autumn to more than 90% in the second survey.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
How is your foreign lorry watch going?
Now that I have relocated to Buchan I rarely see any lorries that aren't from NE Scotland, never mind non-UK...
Hope all is working out with the move - I have a vague recollection the previous owners left a load of clutter behind.
I will say regarding lorry watch that it provided a nice distraction on the drive down to my fathers funeral.
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Ok let's think this one through properly.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.
Paging Philip_Thompson. He can tell you how he didn't vote for a genocide abetter when he voted for a genocide abetter.
And now she's been raised to the Lords by the current prime minister, without a peep from him (or the other Johnson lovers on here).
I guess you're not that bothered about genocide.
*Bullshit*
I voted for there to be NO MEPs. I didn't vote for there to be any MEPs.
And when Claire Fox was elevated to the Lords I vehemently objected to it so you are lying or ignorant about "without a peep". This is what I had to say (amongst other posts attacking her and the appointment).
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2969807/#Comment_2969807 One thing that Corbyn and Fox have in common is they both very publicly supported the IRA not just in theory but even within days after atrocities, when even the IRAs erstwhile supporters were keeping quiet. Its one thing standing up for 'freedom fighters' in abstract - but to do so days after an atrocity while people are still mourning . . .
In the days after the Warrington bombings even IRA supporters were distancing themselves from such evil - but not Fox and her allies. Nor has she ever apologised for that.
She is every bit as contemptible as Corbyn. Utterly beyond the pale
I stand corrected, you did speak up.
So you're bothered enough about genocide to speak up about her, but you nevertheless a) voted for her, and b) relentlessly support the man who put her in the Lords.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Ok let's think this one through properly.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
Good analysis.
As is mine that there is no law against buying the Socialist Worker.
I would be interested to know what media the lefties on here consume. One has admitted he reads one of Rupert's rags. So it's pretty much a do as I say not as I do from our sample (modest size as it is).
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
To be pedantic (naturally), the second tranche of X are not equally high priority, since they are from the next cohort down the list.
Actually, for most of the time, they are from the same risk category. Only once you near completing the vaccination of one priority group would some of the 2nd x fall into the lower category.
Correction: which of us is correct depends on whether you are looking at the entire vaccination programme (in which case you are correct) or at you decision-making today with the vaccines you have in hand (in which case I am correct)
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
OT: I quite like that the German for "lamppost-counter" is "Bananenbieger".
That is so off-topic, it boggles the mind how it could ever be on-topic.
If it were the name of a Radiohead album ?
I was reflecting that "Ursula von der Leyen" would scan quite nicely into the lyrics of "Abdulla Bulbul Ameer", and wondering whether there were any suitable German words that rhymed.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
They tried to muscle in when we were in the club if I recall correctly
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
The EU does matter if you want to change the deal, but I do agree change is coming and of course those who lead change succeed while those who resist change fail
I meant changes to the deal...
Or even changes within the framework of the deal, as @Richard_Nabavi outlined a while back. The events of the last few weeks have shown why they are both governmentally sensible and politically impossible.
And when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, nothing happens until everything happens. In a bad way.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
This reflects one of three things:
(1) The government is slowing down the roll-out of vaccines to younger groups, because it feels it can get more bang for the buck in vaccinating older cohorts twice
(2) There are worries about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine if the doses are spaced too far apart (see Scotland), and therefore they are moving them closer together
(3) Vaccine supply is increasing markedly, and therefore they are increasingly confident of their ability to meet targets
My money is on (3).
There is a fourth possibility that the ability to ramp up capacity to manage the vaccinations is falling short (cf. last week’s relatively disappointing data), and they are bringing some of the second doses forward to spread them over a longer period, the alternative being that when the main cohort of second doses hits, first dose progress grinds to a halt.
"Capacity"? Do you mean supply of vaccines, or do you mean the ability to put jabs into arms?
I don't see how bringing forward second jabs can be indicative of reduced "capacity", except possibly as part of concerns under (2). I.e, a worry that effectiveness drops off if there is too big a gap.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
Ah, that's interesting. I would contend that the Mirror and the Mail are roughly equidistant from the political centre, and their relative readerships are indicative of why Labour struggle to win elections. Ditto the Guardian and the Telegraph.
Would you agree that Novara are clearly further left than the Mirror? In which case, presumably you disagree that the Mirror and the Mail are equivalent (as per the above), or else your previous post makes no sense? Obviously, this relies on simplifying the political spectrum into a one-dimensional scale, but whatever.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's the Indpendent. Therefore factcheck with reputable source required.
I'll have a look at the evidence later.
Certainly EU behaviour is strange if they eg grant Equivalence to some equivalent countries but not others, whilst claiming to be consistent.
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
But presumably the European Union can assist in making it more difficult for London to get equivalency and to compete by either changing EU rules in very specific ways or in delaying and obstructing equivalency status. I am not saying that they are (I simply don't know), but that they could.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
Also worth noting that the EU is famously not a big fan of Ireland's success at "luring" lots of big multinational companies into relocating there - albeit not so much for the results, as for the means employed.
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
One can only hope that questions are asked and the truth is made clear. Are there any sharks circling?
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
They're just the sleeping partners; Jo and Rachel have done all the work.
Just googled Novara Media using the search term, er, "Novara media".
On the pinned tweets on the first search results page, two of the three are about Israel/Palestinians.
And people wonder why the "right wing" media dominates.
Novara is a secret pleasure of mine for their frequently hilarious takes on the most pressing issues of the day:
I dip in and out of Ash Sarkar - who I like and rate - but on the whole I steer clear of Novara.
Owen Jones is imo the best guide to what's hot and what's not on the modern metro left.
She of the 'literally a communist'? And 'luxury communism', whatever the eff that is? I can only assume she thinks she would get to shop at the communist party officials only shops come the revolution... Still I can watch the Novara Media election 2019 coverage over and over, and it still makes me smile...
There is no place for communism in this world. Every time its been tried there have been mass executions and cratered economies.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
Yup agree with this and as I said yesterday, anecdotally the movement seems to be from the EU cities to London, at least in terms of employment. Unsurprisingly EU based companies want access to London's vast facilities and capital markets should the EU decide against equivalence.
Bailey was always the wrong person to lead the BoE. We should have worked much harder to get Raghuram Rajan into the job.
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
I don't know either. I instinctively trust Sturgeon more than Salmon, and the evidence from his trial, whilst not quibbling the verdict, didn't make me revise my opinion of him upwards, plus I'd have thought the Sindy movement needs her more than him, but that's about the extent of my view.
Continuing picture - deaths plummeting, decline in cases slowing:
Decline in cases resuming - last wed 12,718, this 9,938. Someone postulated about the weather affecting the cases - its seems a possibility.
I mentioned that the freezing weather a couple of weeks ago might have had something to do with this - people being indoors more and just generally breathing on each other. There is a Twitter thread here discussing the issue. TLDR - there may be something in my theory but the correlation is not strong enough to be definative.
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
They're just the sleeping partners; Jo and Rachel have done all the work.
Now I have to get the mind bleach out to scrub my mind of that image of Boris and Dad as sleeping partners.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
Yup agree with this and as I said yesterday, anecdotally the movement seems to be from the EU cities to London, at least in terms of employment. Unsurprisingly EU based companies want access to London's vast facilities and capital markets should the EU decide against equivalence.
Bailey was always the wrong person to lead the BoE. We should have worked much harder to get Raghuram Rajan into the job.
My gut - and I'm not close to this any more - is that the only EU city that has really managed to get any meaningful traction is Amsterdam.
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
THey both have quite a reputation for getting it out quickly and often.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
Yep, good point. It's a tricky one. To complain with credibility about the right wing media you must consume some of it. Which is a tough gig. A different and (imo) interesting way to look at the bias is that the crazy left wing stuff like Novara Media is fringe but it's equivalent on the right - the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph etc - is mainstream. This creates advantage for the right. Of course you could say - indeed I think you already have - this simply reflects the balance of people's views but I don't fully buy that. I think it also reinforces them. There's an influence there, insidious and significant.
If it's the chicken of the masses being lead by the media or the egg of the media following the masses, I will plump for the latter. They do what they can to sell papers. Why is Novara Media fringe? Because not many people support it (as in consume it - there are options to support them financially also on their website).
If it is a case of the media dictating the agenda and thereby forcing people to follow their own line, how come the left-leaning media is so useless at it according to the "right wing media" narrative?
Do you or your views feel shaken after a day, courtesy of Rupert, with Giles, Matthew, Deborah et al?
Continuing picture - deaths plummeting, decline in cases slowing:
Decline in cases resuming - last wed 12,718, this 9,938. Someone postulated about the weather affecting the cases - its seems a possibility.
I mentioned that the freezing weather a couple of weeks ago might have had something to do with this - people being indoors more and just generally breathing on eah other. There is a Twitter thread here discussing the issue. TLDR - there may be something in my theory but the correlation is not strong enough to be definative.
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
THey both have quite a reputation for getting it out quickly and often.
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Ok let's think this one through properly.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
Whether you look by number of papers or circulation it is clear that the political distribution of newspapers does not match the political distribution of the electorate.
On your specific points - the Standard is run by George Osborne and endorsed the Conservative party in 2019 and 2017. The Sun always endorses the Tories except for Tony Blair.
To revert somewhat to an earlier discussion, our Prime Minster has a few months to convince the media to stop using his first name and start referring to him by his surname, for maximum positive electoral effect from this development. Shame there are no pharma companies called "Boris and Boris".
Indeed. Credit to the Prime MInister and his Dad for getting this out so quickly though.
Continuing picture - deaths plummeting, decline in cases slowing:
Decline in cases resuming - last wed 12,718, this 9,938. Someone postulated about the weather affecting the cases - its seems a possibility.
I mentioned that the freezing weather a couple of weeks ago might have had something to do with this - people being indoors more and just generally breathing on eah other. There is a Twitter thread here discussing the issue. TLDR - there may be something in my theory but the correlation is not strong enough to be definative.
Would you expect strong correlations when there are many factors effecting transmissibility and you cannot control for all of them?
I'm not a scientist - I'm a lawyer. Over the last year I have had to train myself not to try and make the facts support my case and I still have a lot to learn!
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
And sorry, I meant to address your 1st point also.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
The non-tetch thing didn't last long did it.
That was sunshine itself. I almost always feel bad after I've written a bad tempered post so it's in my own interests not to. Even Morris Dancer can't provoke me these days.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
But presumably the European Union can assist in making it more difficult for London to get equivalency and to compete by either changing EU rules in very specific ways or in delaying and obstructing equivalency status. I am not saying that they are (I simply don't know), but that they could.
Sure, but I think that is less of a barrier than you'd think. Firms in the UK get people registered with the SEC all the time. It's a massive pain, but it's not *that* hard, and it's not like every employee needs it.
The EU has pull in two areas: one is derivatives clearing, where the clearing house is indirectly baked by the central bank, and I suspect that will migrate to the EU. (But the number of jobs is de minimis here.) The other regards supervision of the trading activities of EU banks. Here there are potentially bigger moves: but there really aren't that many EU banks with big UK trading operations - BNP is mostly in Paris, and Deutsche has been in decline for some time.
Hi @floater. FPT. My partner, aged 47, had the Oxford last Thursday. She is still feeling weak and off colour, but not enough to be off work. Another anecdote that the younger you are, the worse the vaccine affects some .
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
And sorry, I meant to address your 1st point also.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
Your other great skill is constantly forcing me to wonder why there's no option to give half-likes to posts...
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
Haven't a clue. But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
I don't know either. I instinctively trust Sturgeon more than Salmon, and the evidence from his trial, whilst not quibbling the verdict, didn't make me revise my opinion of him upwards, plus I'd have thought the Sindy movement needs her more than him, but that's about the extent of my view.
I know I'm supposed to treat him as a bogeyman, but I always quite liked Salmond. He always came across (to me, at least) as witty, genial and quite human. Whereas I get the impression Nicola Sturgeon hates me and everyone else in England, personally and furiously. Impressions from afar, and all that, and of course I'm not the target voter for either of them.
Hi @floater. FPT. My partner, aged 47, had the Oxford last Thursday. She is still feeling weak and off colour, but not enough to be off work. Another anecdote that the younger you are, the worse the vaccine affects some .
Thank you for taking the time to respond - I will shorty be escorting her to her jab to ensure no backsliding
I don't remember who I was having the brief discussion with abut 633 Squadron and the Death Star attack scene in Star Wars - A New Hope but, whoever it was, enjoy -
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
And what's your view, Nigel? Is Nicola in the wrong and in trouble?
My tuppence worth would say publish everything. Presumably if she is confident in her case that would be the way in an open democracy to demonstrate it. Disclaimer: I cannot stand either of them!
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Ok let's think this one through properly.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
Whether you look by number of papers or circulation it is clear that the political distribution of newspapers does not match the political distribution of the electorate.
On your specific points - the Standard is run by George Osborne and endorsed the Conservative party in 2019 and 2017. The Sun always endorses the Tories except for Tony Blair.
"It is clear"? To whom, exactly? I've just outlined the distribution by paper and it does not support your analysis. The fact that more people buy right wing papers than left is because there are more of them in the country to begin with, not because of some nefarious goings-on by dodgy cigar-chomping magnates.
Also, Osborne was editor of the Standard - not the owner - from 2017 only, and has now left. His replacement is apparently Samantha Cameron's sister, albeit I'm not sure how much that has influenced her politics. In any event, the Standard's distribution is pretty much limited to London, which is the one area of the country where the Tories went backwards in 2019, so I don't think this helps your point in the slightest.
The Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity as a “very serious escalation”.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
Whilst I hope they dont, what is the "accused " narrative all about. Surely the EU has a right to muscle in on this now we are not in the club. It is up to us to compete not get all upset as though we are entitled to have it and nobody else.
It's also a bit weird, because the "European Union" has no ability or capability to lure firms away from the UK. (Absent some regional development funds, and I can't think that Calabria is trying to get Goldman Sachs to move there.)
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
But presumably the European Union can assist in making it more difficult for London to get equivalency and to compete by either changing EU rules in very specific ways or in delaying and obstructing equivalency status. I am not saying that they are (I simply don't know), but that they could.
Sure, but I think that is less of a barrier than you'd think. Firms in the UK get people registered with the SEC all the time. It's a massive pain, but it's not *that* hard, and it's not like every employee needs it.
The EU has pull in two areas: one is derivatives clearing, where the clearing house is indirectly baked by the central bank, and I suspect that will migrate to the EU. (But the number of jobs is de minimis here.) The other regards supervision of the trading activities of EU banks. Here there are potentially bigger moves: but there really aren't that many EU banks with big UK trading operations - BNP is mostly in Paris, and Deutsche has been in decline for some time.
IS not the context here the comments of various figures that it was important that the UK be "punished" for leaving the EU, very early in the process?
Of course the regulatory process will be used to make it difficult for the UK, whether fair and consistent, or not.
Comments
Second weekend in May 2022 it is then. You should all come down. It's a blast.
https://www.dartmusicfestival.co.uk/?utm_source=Business news subscribers&utm_campaign=a88aee3e7f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_05_08_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4788e290db-a88aee3e7f-141813397&mc_cid=a88aee3e7f&mc_eid=8f50bbd53e&fbclid=IwAR3_3xjfd0OUlmhfJSmomkeMLgnlnxpw9onlrXgjdP9EHIf-kt65YH_YIfQ
It has been obvious for a long time
(1) The government is slowing down the roll-out of vaccines to younger groups, because it feels it can get more bang for the buck in vaccinating older cohorts twice
(2) There are worries about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine if the doses are spaced too far apart (see Scotland), and therefore they are moving them closer together
(3) Vaccine supply is increasing markedly, and therefore they are increasingly confident of their ability to meet targets
My money is on (3).
https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1364558023222525955
Tory lead shrunk.
The study found ‘Remainers’ are 7% points more likely willing to take the vaccine than ‘Leavers’ or those who did not vote in the 2016 referendum.
Edit: Or is it?
Ask everyone not to buy those newspapers. Or subscribe to their online media presence.
Spread it around.
Before you know it they will be down to selling a few hundred copies in the shires and north London (you and ie @NickPalmer) and Novara Media and Socialist Worker will be in the ascendency.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1364270308660826116?s=19
Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I fully support the 'delayed second dose' strategy.
In the latter case, while the claimed accuracy for the test is 99.9%, for the 30% or so who are asymptomatic, and are therefore extremely unlikely to be tested, the accuracy approaches 0%.
I will say regarding lorry watch that it provided a nice distraction on the drive down to my fathers funeral.
We can presumably agree on the Telegraph and Mail being right wing, and the Guardian and the Mirror being left. So let's call that a wash; it's not my fault the right wing variants are so much more popular.
The Express is clearly right wing. The Star should be roughly its left wing equivalent, based on ownership, although its editorial line is very unclear to me (and it seems from a quick Google that I'm not alone). But in theory that should be a wash.
The Independent, we can disagree on whether it is actually independent, but it certainly isn't right wing.
The Financial Times and City AM aren't all that political and have circulations far too small to matter mostly consisting of people who aren't traditional swing voters.
The Metro and the Standard... I've never been able to discern any form of political editorial line from either; they function mostly as celebrity trash mags..
So that leaves the Sun and the Times. And means that the argument that we have a "right wing press" that is unduly influencing elections rests solely on the shoulders of Rupert Murdoch, a man who famously backed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor, if not as PM) for well over a decade. And, is there really that much evidence that either paper is all that enthusiastic about the current administration?
So you're bothered enough about genocide to speak up about her, but you nevertheless a) voted for her, and b) relentlessly support the man who put her in the Lords.
Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/uk-financial-services-bank-of-england-b1806765.html
But it needs settling out in the open, rather than brushing under the carpet.
Which you might think argues in one direction.
As is mine that there is no law against buying the Socialist Worker.
I would be interested to know what media the lefties on here consume. One has admitted he reads one of Rupert's rags. So it's pretty much a do as I say not as I do from our sample (modest size as it is).
Any other left-looking PB-ers care to share?
Correction: which of us is correct depends on whether you are looking at the entire vaccination programme (in which case you are correct) or at you decision-making today with the vaccines you have in hand (in which case I am correct)
Hence the diversion into mild German insults...
Here's the Crumit 1927 version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv6M2omQ__U
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1364533230540578816
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1364607081605722118?s=20
Owen Jones is imo the best guide to what's hot and what's not on the modern metro left.
The vast bulk of any "luring" is being done by cities and countries inside the EU. (And is no different, of course, from the luring that we are doing to try and get pharmaceutical companies to set up production in the UK.)
And when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, nothing happens until everything happens. In a bad way.
I don't see how bringing forward second jabs can be indicative of reduced "capacity", except possibly as part of concerns under (2). I.e, a worry that effectiveness drops off if there is too big a gap.
Would you agree that Novara are clearly further left than the Mirror? In which case, presumably you disagree that the Mirror and the Mail are equivalent (as per the above), or else your previous post makes no sense? Obviously, this relies on simplifying the political spectrum into a one-dimensional scale, but whatever.
I'll have a look at the evidence later.
Certainly EU behaviour is strange if they eg grant Equivalence to some equivalent countries but not others, whilst claiming to be consistent.
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1364608480800342020?s=20
I presume MRDA does not mean Men's Roller Derby Association.
Still I can watch the Novara Media election 2019 coverage over and over, and it still makes me smile...
There is no place for communism in this world. Every time its been tried there have been mass executions and cratered economies.
Bailey was always the wrong person to lead the BoE. We should have worked much harder to get Raghuram Rajan into the job.
https://twitter.com/DevanSinha/status/1364370077320155139
If it is a case of the media dictating the agenda and thereby forcing people to follow their own line, how come the left-leaning media is so useless at it according to the "right wing media" narrative?
Do you or your views feel shaken after a day, courtesy of Rupert, with Giles, Matthew, Deborah et al?
On your specific points - the Standard is run by George Osborne and endorsed the Conservative party in 2019 and 2017. The Sun always endorses the Tories except for Tony Blair.
The EU has pull in two areas: one is derivatives clearing, where the clearing house is indirectly baked by the central bank, and I suspect that will migrate to the EU. (But the number of jobs is de minimis here.) The other regards supervision of the trading activities of EU banks. Here there are potentially bigger moves: but there really aren't that many EU banks with big UK trading operations - BNP is mostly in Paris, and Deutsche has been in decline for some time.
She is still feeling weak and off colour, but not enough to be off work. Another anecdote that the younger you are, the worse the vaccine affects some .
Whereas I get the impression Nicola Sturgeon hates me and everyone else in England, personally and furiously.
Impressions from afar, and all that, and of course I'm not the target voter for either of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU
Also, Osborne was editor of the Standard - not the owner - from 2017 only, and has now left. His replacement is apparently Samantha Cameron's sister, albeit I'm not sure how much that has influenced her politics. In any event, the Standard's distribution is pretty much limited to London, which is the one area of the country where the Tories went backwards in 2019, so I don't think this helps your point in the slightest.
Of course the regulatory process will be used to make it difficult for the UK, whether fair and consistent, or not.
We know that. That's just S.O.P.